What is truth?
Introduction
It is a common belief that acquiring knowledge can empower an individual for the notion of facts and truths guides a person on how to proceed on things that must be attended to. In every decision an individual makes, comprehension and weighing of information play a vital role on what and how certain actions and attitudes will be conceptualized and performed. When the complexity of the nature, source and limit of a particular knowledge is exposed in terms of the perspective used by a person, conflict on what point of view to follow along with the beliefs and values a person holds, most often than not determines the behavior, given that the person is a ware of the possible principles and truths he or she could consider.
Resolving the conflict of different truths presents the various kinds of knowledge and its numerous sources and dynamics resulting to different studies that tried to answer and give light on the confusion brought about by the bulk of information available to man. It is interesting, however, to look into the interplay of truths and beliefs in situations that call for intensive deliberation of attitudes and perception in order to take necessary actions. This paper seeks to analyze two philosophical accounts regarding the concept of “truth” by presenting arguments and counter arguments of two different philosophical perspectives – empiricism and rationalism.
Discussion and Analysis
Knowledge is generally interpreted as any information that someone is aware of. Knowledge and its allied categories, such as science, wisdom, learning, even truth – are used promiscuously to describe aspects of the intellectual and perhaps moral inquiry that is organized in modern systems of education. Knowledge therefore is not a simple idea (1990). It represents instead of a more confusing assembly of instinct, experience, information, experiment, technology, theory, ideology, morality. People’s beliefs in connection to knowledge state that through learning, knowledge is acquired. That is why learning – whether in cognitive, affective, interpersonal or psychomotor domains – is said to involve a process of individual transformation (2003). Thus, people actively construct their knowledge though the process of learning (1993).
On the other hand, learning is about how we perceive and understand the world, about making meaning ( 1997). Learning may involve mastering abstract principles, understanding proofs, remembering factual information, acquiring methods, techniques and approaches, recognition, reasoning, debating ideas, or developing behavior appropriate to specific situations. Pioneering theories of knowledge have been popular for their absolute definition and descriptions of how things are the way they are and its permanence while contemporary scholars hailed the relevance of the subjective or the relative situation-based approach of understanding things. The static and passive notion and the conservative traditional beliefs carried on to the ideals of ever-changing, active and adaptive participation and interplay of thoughts.
Empiricism is a theory of meaning and truth stressing the genetic and instrumental character of knowledge whose knowledge approaches are in the plane of interactive association and influence of the environment. Empiricists emphasize the experimental method that is open to the test of criticism of others through validation and reliability measures wherein knowledge is developed through empirical experiences that can hold true under public scrutiny (). On the other hand, rationalism is the belief that properties or the “universals” exist independently of their manifestations. Rationalists believe in the existence of concepts despite the absence of their face-value or demonstration. The ideal emphasizes claims of existence and independence making it a controversial philosophical opinion ().
According to rationalists, knowledge is only attainable through the use of reason prior to experience. On the other hand, empiricists believe in the need to experience the concept first before being able to understand it. These claims resulted to differing approaches to attaining truth and knowledge enumerated as the induction (empiricism) and the deduction (rationalism) processes. Plato, Descartes, Leibnez, and Spinoza are among the early proponents of rationalism while the Sophists, Aristotle to some extent, Aquinas and the Epicureans are among the founders of empiricism (1990; 1993).
Plato claimed that knowledge of something is only possible if the object being defined is changeless and since the physical world is ever-changing, attaining full understanding of it is impossible. Moreover, there is an existing perfect nonphysical world in which full knowledge of everything can be discerned in its whole context and concept such as the concepts of justice and beauty. The Epicureans on the other hand, believe that the use of senses is the most evident assertion of truth and that objects leave impressions from which to base the succeeding critical understanding of its perfect state and otherwise (1993; 1992).
(2005) emphasized the bulk of work dedicated to resolve conflicts of truths as evident in the available academic papers, teachings in educational institutions and research programs enhancing and developing conflict resolution skills as well as the use of personal experience, intuition, and imagination learned through traditional socialization processes, and from cultural, political, and religious underpinnings. The practical interplay of the theories of empiricism and rationalism will best illustrate the conflicts that arise between the said bodies of knowledge.
At present, the application of these philosophic fundamentals regarding truth and knowledge are best presented in the common research undertakings utilized in the academic discipline to further the intellect of today’s civilization. The influences of the empiricists and the rationalists have been illustrated in the research designs and approaches following that inductive and the deductive paradigms. The quantitative research (inductive) approaches follow the discipline of the empiricists by testing and experimenting on things to come up with tangible explanations of the existing things and behaviors and even beliefs. On the other hand, the qualitative research (deductive) approaches among researchers that are more adept and keen to the subjective explanation of things, behaviors and beliefs.
Furthermore, the fusion of these fundamental treatments of truths have been evident in the conglomeration of the quantitative and the qualitative research designs in order to come up with more holistic findings and understanding of the way things are as well as the governing laws that lay out the standard and normative appraisals of the current society evident in all fields and discipline. In this respect, the seemingly endless debate and differences in the claims and arguments presented by existing theories of truth has somehow reached to a conclusion highlighting the importance and functionality of both to arrive at commonly supportive truths.
Conclusion:
The nature of uniqueness and the presence of diverse views among people entitle everyone to cling to some beliefs evident and applicable in their own ways and means of life. People do not always affirm to each others’ perception and interpretation of things. But it is also true that there are numerous aspects of living that everyone will agree upon and among these are the beliefs about teaching and learning, being a student, knowledge, the idea of what is worth knowing, and the presence of personal philosophy on specific things.
Reviewing the history of epistemology, it is quite discernable that despite the confusion and arguments regarding the best statements that will most clarify philosophical issues presented to the inquisitions of the human mind, a clear trend in addressing such concerns has become obvious through time. Since the time of Socrates, Plato and, other philosophers, quests of underpinning the essence of truth and knowledge that they deemed important to experience absolute freedom and meaning of existence continues up to this day. Scholars of today have contributed a mass of knowledge, competing and supporting alike, in order to satisfy the whims of the human imploring mind. Resolutions have been reached only to be critically analyzed again. The0 interest, however, never stops.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment