Truth is a descriptive label placed on information believed to meet the standard of having no false attributes. These attributes are in accordance with reality and fact as defined by most dictionaries. However, note that fact and reality are only contingent on the information received. Therefore, truth is subject to change depending on the information.

Absolute truth is a descriptive label placed on information not believed to meet the standard, but defines the standard of having no false attributes. That is, absolute truth is information that is synonymous with fact and reality. Absolute truth requires absolute information. As soon as information is incomplete or partial, the truth is no longer absolute. As limited human beings, we are not subject to absolute information and therefore cannot label any part of information as absolute truth.

Usage of the word true and truth work when used as an adjective, a descriptive label. Though someone may use truth as a synonym for an actual object, the object is still only described as having attributes in accordance with fact and reality. There is no one (or multiple) object(s) that is truth. Much as mathematics and numbers do not exist beyond descriptions of the physical world, so is truth.

The morality of truth, that is, using the label to describe what is deemed right, is entirely a social convention. In this sense, morality does not have to use truth. Since the only accurate way of using truth is through non-absolute, individuals use the truth label solely based on their information. It can then be said, “what is true for one may not be true for another.” Apply this to morality and it is easy to see what some deem to be unacceptable is acceptable to others. That is not to suggest that no moral standards can or should be enforced, but rather there are reasons based on perceived truth of why individuals do “bad” things. Individual morality and societal morality are two separate standards and a compromise must be met in order for individuals to coexist.

One way of coexisting with different standards of morality and different perceived truths is simply for all parties to discuss the similarities and differences and reach a compromise that is beneficial to all. Unfortunately, some individuals will have to secede some or all of their morality if they wish to remain within the community. Another equally popular way is to claim to have either directly or as a source absolute truth, namely God. Then standards of morality are not determined by individuals, but an outside separate source which has absolute knowledge, can provide the label of absolute truth, and therefore can also provide absolute morality. The usage of God in this way comes from religion. It is interesting to note, however, that religions, churches, sects, have all changed what was labeled absolute truth (therefore negating the absolute) and changed their standards of morality. Any individual or group that claims it has, either within its capacity or without, absolute truth (whether labeled God or not) and then a change of what was once labeled truth is observed, that individual or group does not have absolute truth. For an individual or group to prove they have absolute knowledge and absolute truth would require a transfer of that knowledge to another individual or group. As can be imagined, this is an impossibility.

This entire argument is predicated on the idea that fact and reality do not change. Given that absolute means unchanged/unchangeable, it would then require absolute knowledge to claim that fact and reality do not change. The flaw is the standard. Without absolute knowledge, no standard can be made.

Without absolute knowledge, fact and reality cannot be defined as unchanged or unchangeable. This argument would then recommend that an object with absolute knowledge be found. Once found, that object would be useless unless the absolute knowledge is then transferred to the finder and from the finder to others. Given the limited comprehension of the mind, this feat seems an impossibility. Therefore claims to absolute knowledge requires an acceptance of limited knowledge most commonly defined as faith.

Faith is not knowledge. Faith is an acceptance of limited knowledge to a claim to a source of absolute knowledge. Proof for the claim cannot be given. Proof against the claim also cannot be given. That begs the question, “why does the claim exist?” The reason is to gain influence or power over others. Whether the claim is true or not is irrelevant, since it cannot be proven one way or the other. If absolute knowledge (and absolute truth) are irrelevant, then all that is left is limited knowledge and perceptive truth. Since a society does not have absolute knowledge, it is recommended that as more information is gathered that the society allows their limited knowledge and perceptive truth to change and adapt as the information suggests. Indeed, this has been seen many times over in history. Since fact and reality cannot be proven as they are defined, it is recommended that society accepts as fact and reality that information that best conforms to society’s standards. The standards that decide what is fact and reality have to be chosen. Because of this, they are subject to flaws. But again, as new information enters that society, those flaws can be removed. Indeed, this has shown to be effective. Change must be allowed. It can be destructive, but it does not have to be. When embraced by all participants and used by all participants, change releases all limits to potential. The world can have no bounds.

blog comments powered by Disqus