Is pragmatic truth inherently less valid than other forms of truth? If a Hindu believes in the truth that Vishnu exists and a Muslim does not, how could they both be right? I don't know how to word this, but are the correspondence and epistemic theories of truth the most "true?"
They say that relativism can not be affirmed without contradiction because to do so would imply that relativism had truth in an absolute sense. Is this simply an oversimplification or a strawman?
I have read that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is self-refuting because it relies on absolute truth to be true. I have also read that the idea expressed in the previous statement commits the fallacy of begging the question. I am thoroughly confused by the debate here...?
Could you please recommend about some books or paper which deals with the question of the meaning of being true? I mean - What does it mean to say about something that it is true?
According to Wikipedia, which I grant isn't always a reliable source, William James believed that truth is what is useful. To me that just sounds stupid. Certainly truth is not just whatever is useful. Should I be so dismissive or is there more to his theory of truth to be appreciated?
Is all truth subjective?
A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective.
Do you think all truths are subjective? If not, what is wrong with the above argument?
- Read more about Is all truth subjective?
- 2 comments
- Log in to post comments