Tom "Do you think he's tellin' the truth?"
Casey "He's telling the truth, the truth for him. He wasn't makin' it up."
Tom "Is it the truth for us?"
Casey " I just don't know."
I think we may have discussed this earlier in the year because it goes along with many elements of Hayakawa. Each person has their own "map" and it is created by one's perception of the extensional world and personal experiences. I was curious as to everyone's thoughts on this. We all seem to have agreed that everyone has a different perception of the world but does this automatically equate to individual truths? Is there any universal truth or is it just a myth? It makes sense that some things such as the existance of a higher being, or the "meaning of life" would be an indivual truth but I just wonder if there is anything that isn't. If I was totally convinced that the ocean was orange or that there was no gravity, does that make it true? At least for me? If this is how it is I just wonder if the only way to determine the validity of something is by how many people believe it. Otherwise there seems to be no 'standard' of truth. If there is only what is true for you then what makes Holocaust deniers less truthful then scientists.
Logically my mind rebels against these ideas because it's so drastically different from what I have always believed. This would mean that no one was wrong in their assumptions or beliefs. Sorry if I'm getting a little abstract but I'm very interested to see how you feel about this.
(Molly Dunbar)
9 comments:
Well, as Molly said, everyone has their own perceptions, semantic environments, etc. Because of this, I don't think that there is an actual universal truth. However, I think that we have agreed on things and accepted them to be 'universal truths.' For example, using Molly's example with the ocean. We have all accepted that people see the ocean as blue, even though to us it is orange.
I really don't know how else to word this. Does anyone understand my thoughts?
What if someone is colorblind? Then something REALLY doesn't appear to them as it does to everyone else, the way that everyone else has accepted it to be.
No one said you couldn't believe that the ocean appears orange (Subconsciously, I used E-Prime here..). It is just expected that people will regard you as an outsider, as a dissenter. The Puritan lifestyle shunned all dissenters, even though their points of view differed and were not necessarily incorrect. This is why Bradford writes his document as a "truth", disregarding the possibility that there are also other truths that exist. Separatists were pretty radical, after all.
(Sam Maliha)
Bradford uses the word "truth" in talking about rather religious topics. Religion is one of those mysteries that cannot necessarily be proven or disproved. This differs from the earth being flat. You can show the non-believer that the world is in fact a sphere. You can't, however, point to something and say "faith" or "god" or "salvation".
If a person's "truth" cannot physically be proven otherwise, there is nothing preventing it from being the Truth. This would not make it a catholic (BONUS POINTS FOR A VOCAB WORD!) Truth, but a personal one, which exists and I believe is as good as any other truth.
(Megan)
While Bradford's claim of only telling the truth is contingent upon his perception of the treatment of Protestants and Separatists, I do not believe that it can fully be considered "truth." It is a truth, but it is far from the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He omitted several, shall we say, key facts and used loaded words in order to further promote his bias.
If the argument were a dry, intellectual reasoning of the history behind Separatists, I would be more inclined to believe his claim of telling THE (vs. A) simple truth. With his rhetoric, I do not believe that Bradford is living up to his initial promise.
To answer the question about calling the ocean blue/orange ... In Hayakawa he says that we often accept things in order to cooperate with society. It is the whole idea that a word represents an object. We have agreed to use that word because without words we would be without language and thus have a much more difficult time communicating.
As for William Bradford, what he observes and believes is the only truth he has. He is living with people who believe pretty much the same things as he does. Today we are taught to doubt and experiment to find the truth. In the Purtian societies they were just told "Believe".
(Kelley Volosin)
I agree with Megan that religion can be a tricky topic when it comes to truth or "Truth," since one's religious beliefs cannot exactly be "verified" by another. They may very well be challenged or agreed upon, but a religion cannot really be proved or disproved, given the nature of such ideas as the existence of supernatural beings or "salvation," as Megan mentioned.
Outside of religion, though, in general I feel similarly to how Mary feels. I believe that there cannot be a fundamental "universal Truth" - there are simply "individual" truths. Although there ARE certain things on which people have come to a general consensus, what determines whether such things should actually be considered "Truth"? Isn't this simply up to the individual's perception? Musn't everything in the world eventually be decided upon by the individual himself/herself? An example of this is found right here in this discussion - Grace is not convinced of Bradford's claim of telling "The Truth" because of his bias-evident rhetoric. She has ultimately decided for herself that there is no "Truth" to be found in Bradford's writing. Because every individual has his/her own perception or interpretation of things (his/her own intensional map), a "universal "Truth" cannot exist.
Of course, my theory entails the following: I as an individual could simply be perceiving that there cannot be "Truth," when in actuality, such "Truth" DOES exist. Now I'm left doubting my own thoughts...oh, the wonders of semantics...
Thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
There is no one Truth with a capital t. As all of us have varying intensional perspectives, there are ultimately almost infinitely many ways to interpret a situation.
However, we must keep in mind that Bradford was writing for posterity, as we discussed in class. The work we are reading is showing the Puritans as they wanted to be depicted. However, Bradford does acknowledge that he cannot offer Truth. In the full quote, Bradford states, "the which I shall endeavour to manifest in a plain style, with singular regard unto the simple trust in all things, at least as near as my slender judgment con attain the same." Thus, Bradford acknowledges that he is offering his variation of Trust, using his own judgment.
You wondered if gravity would cease to exist if we stopped believing in it. Once again, your questions about "Truth" prod us to look at the line between extensional reality and intensional perceptions. For example, some islanders near Africa actually cannot perceive differences in the colors blue and green, because they naturally perceive the two colors as one.
Regarding gravity, I would like to offer a quote from 1984 again, one that I've used before, but I feel is particularly relevant once again:
"Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.' Winston worked it out. 'If he thinks he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously think I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens."
We seem to agree that there is no one Truth. But is there one true reality out there, or only what we perceive? Or perhaps there is a true reality out there, but we can only understand it filtered through personal, intensional perceptions?
In response to a lot of these comments: Bradford's religion is a symbol of his truth. Since the symbol is not the thing symbolized, these two entities are not tied to one another. That's why we all have the right to assign our personal symbols to what our "Truth" may be.
I understand Megan's differentiation between physical evidence versus that which is accepted based on faith. (And faith is not blind, may I add). Anyway, what if someone INSISTS on believing that the ocean is orange? You may be able to show him/her a picture where the ocean appears to be blue, but with technology these days, he/she would reciprocate with a picture of an orange ocean. Sure, it would have been edited, but it still appears orange! I'm confusing myself.
What if there was an area in the ocean (yet to be discovered) that did actually appear orange? And once again, I'll pose my previous question. What about the colorblind who perceive the visible spectrum differently than others? I'm so curious.
(Sam Maliha)
"Bradford's religion is a symbol of his truth." (Sam M.)
I know it's being a bit nit-picky, but I don't think this is quite accurate. Is Bradford's religion a symbol of his truth, or is it Truth? If Bradford firmly believes the doctrines set up by the Puritan faith, then wouldn't those doctrines be what he is basing his definition of Truth on?
In addition, I think this has sort of been implied in some of your questions, but is it possible that there is an absolute Truth, whether or not we choose to agree with it? It may or may not be identifiable, but whatever the case, is it possible that the Truth is out there somewhere, and that there really is no such thing as "personal truth"?
Emily T.
Post a Comment