On truth

We begin with the definition of truth. We will not use the etymology of the greek word for truth which leads to its definition as non oblivion. The definition will be closer to that of the notion of validity. The first thing that we should bear in mind is that there are no facts; there are only interpretations of facts based on deliberate axioms. If we observe a flower on the road, we have no proof whatsoever that what we see actually exists, we axiomatize that it exists. To be precise we axiomatize the existence of our senses. It is by interpreting our sense that we conclude that the flower of the previous example is there. Furthermore even if we accept that there are objects external to us, since we get on touch with them only through our senses, this means that when we refer to reality we actually refer to the projection of reality on our senses and not to the objects themselves.

To claim the truth of something, we do not rely exclusively on sensing it. If we look at the sun and then we close our eyes, a temporary illusion happens which takes the form of luminous points within our vision. Someone could claim that there are small light sources. This is basically false. It is their optical nerve stimulated in a similar way as if by small light sources. We know that because people that might be around that person and the study of the human brain show which the actual function is. There can be infinite interpretations given to the fact. The one which we call objective truth is the one that is consistent and coherent with the totality of the senses we have as subjects. It is the sense that we have on our senses and their dialectic interaction, or else the meta-sense. Usually, when we refer to our senses we only mean the five external ones, but there are also the internal. The reason that we know about our feelings and thoughts is that we can sense them. On this essay we use the aforementioned definition of truth and we accept the axiom that our senses exist.

It becomes rather easily understood that characterizing something as true or false is not an easy endeavor at all, because it is not easy reach complete and consistent interpretations. To be able to formulate truths we need to know our limits. Thus, on the previous example, the person that looks at the sun, if they want to be consistent they could say then that they see some luminous points without clarifying whether the points are something internal or external to them neither their cause, if they do not know why this happens. And if another person listens this description the true statement on their side would be to say that someone says that they see some points and not that someone sees some points. Of course many times we do not know what we know and what we do not know. Finding a truth – and not the truth – is a constant process of search which necessarily passes through the path of error and falseness. That we must accept as a part of our existence, especially if we think that there can never be any subject able to access the totality of existing information neither to process completely the available information. That also means that different people accordingly to their own conditions can have a different approach on the same matter which can have both true and false elements and obviously it is a laborious task to find a common truth between two or more truths, if it exists.

Till now we have referred to truth in relation to what can be sensed. This does not mean that whatever eludes senses cannot be real. For instance, the people facing for the first time the phenomenon of electricity could not know the existence of electrons. Electrons cannot be observed directly through our human senses. They can though be indirectly observed through the results of the electric force, like through the static electricity spark which we sense when touching something that is positively or negatively charged compared to us. Moreover through the memory that we have obtained from our senses or we have inherited by our ancestors as body memory, and thought we can envision objects that we have not sensed empirically. So for example we can have theories which predict natural phenomena that we have never observed or we can envision realities that we have never lived.

What there is no point in talking about is that which we can sense neither directly nor indirectly and we cannot approach it through envisioning based on our senses. Even if something like that exists, it insulated to our life. This thesis is related to the issue of several religions. Some group of people could claim that each time the trees’ leaves move it is an invisible to us deity with ten pink tentacles that causes the motion. This is something that we cannot sense, and neither can we use our sense to envision it as part of our reality (as part of another reality it is possible). It cannot be falsified as a claim. But neither can it be verified. Here it is the axioms each party sets that interfere. If a party chooses to axiomatize that there is a deity just because they read so and just because they want so, let them talk about their own truths. However these truths have nothing to do with a party that accepts our initial axiom and they are nonsense to this party.

What we deal with in this essay is to a great degree the foundations of the scientific method. It’s important however for historical reasons to stress out that we do not imply that what exists is only what we have sensed and envisioned based on our senses, rather that this is the only thing that we can address as true or false. If we thought that the only thing that exists is that which we can sense there would be no progress and the world would be poorer. The exploration of our internal and external world, experimentation and fantasy are interconnected to science and all these together are vital parts of the human experience. Additionally, rationalism, the transition from one logical argument to another, is not the only approach of truth neither is it always the rational one... Many times we feel something that goes against logic, against the conclusions to date; we try it and then out initial logic is subverted. Or many times we try something in which we find no logical basis; an example to the western world is acupuncture that stems from eastern traditions. There has been research during recent years indicating that acupuncture has some medical value. The scientific method is naturally anti-dogmatic. Based on the data that it has to date it accepts as true whatever is verified and not falsified, it obviously rejects whatever is falsified, and it cannot speak with certainty about anything else and it is open to whichever valid subversion.

After all, the truth of each person or group, as a meta-sense, is the extension of what the can sense to date. However, despite the clearly subjective character of truth, as we have already described it, the quest of objectivity is still meaningful. Like a person as a subject is the synergy of the cells they are made of and each one of the cells has its own subsistence, thus humanity or the phenomenon of life or the universe itself become subjects as the synthesis of their content. And what has already been said is valid: our objective truth as subjects is the harmonic and consistent sense we have on our senses upon which project all that are inside and outside of us, all that contains us and all that we contain.