Epistemology: Skepticism of Truth
Tuesday May 13, 2008
Although there may be sound logical and pragmatic reasons for assuming that there are things which are true independent of us and our beliefs, we should ask ourselves whether that constitutes solid grounds for actually believing that truth is objective. Arguing that we don’t have such grounds is known as Philosophical Skepticism.
Read Article: Skepticism of Truth - Can We Know the Truth of Anything?
Comments
It pretty much hinges on how a person defines truth. I would agree that there an objective reality independent of our perceptions. Some bats and sea mammals navigate with sound. Some animals “see” differently than people. The experience of color is vastly different between me and someone who is color blind–so much so that color blind people used to not be eligible as pilots. Some people are deaf, that doesn’t negate the existence of sound. Some people are blind, etc. Some people are more educated, differently educated, and so on.
There are any number of things that affect the way we interpret the reality around us in a subjective manner. And to say that I interpret it “as it is” and not “as I see it” would be the height of arrogance.
HOWEVER, if we define truth as being inherently linked to objective reality and divorced from subjective reality, then there is no truth that any being can know.
That doesn’t mean that we can’t have a very good grasp of our subjective experience and that we can’t see how that aligns with a reality that can be measured beyond what we can perceive and experience.
In other words, can a deaf person be as certain as anyone can be that sound does, in fact, exist? Yes, he can. He has examples daily of others acknowledging the noises that his own ears fail to perceive. A loud crash elicits a crowd turning toward the source of the disturbance. They perceive something he does not. Or, perhaps he feels the vibrations himself. Or he can see sound waves picked up electronically via mechanisms that are built to measure sound waves.
The point is–while he is aware that he, himself, cannot perceive sound, he’s an idiot if he thinks that means he can’t verify that sound exists independent of his experience and perception.
The question then becomes: What if there is some type of “to be” that is outside of any human perception and any mode of mechanical interpretation we have or ever will have? Can we claim that such being is not?
1. We cannot know that such being is not.
2. This type of being is not capable of being differentiated from nothing and can have no impact on our existence; we have, therefore, no reason to believe such a “being” is there. It might be, but to us, it is, quite literally, “nothing.”
3. As existence is defined as manifestation, such a being cannot be said to exist. But it can be said to “be” in some fashion outside of existence; however, without reference to any such state, we have no means to posit such a state “is” or what it represents to us (beyond “nothing”).
In other words, if there is some sort of “something” that is totally divorced from perception and experience, it is, to us, as nothing. We don’t even have any actual means to discuss such a thing in hypothetical, as we have no point of reference and not information to start our speculation from. It’s not only impossible to “know”–it’s impossible to speak about it in any informed, legitimate/valid fashion.