Truth: Absolute Understanding Essay, Research Paper

Absolute Understanding

[ This essay was my first in Philosophy 201. I have another that is similar but different

which I wrote at the terminal of the term. Read both. ]

Absolute Understanding

An elephant was brought to a group of blind work forces who had ne’er

encountered such an animate being before. One felt a leg and reported that an

elephant is a great life pillar. Another felt the bole and reported that an

elephant is a great serpent. Another felt a ivory and reported that an elephant

is like a crisp plowshare. And so on. And so they all quarreled

together, each claiming that his ain history was the truth and therefore

all the others false ( traditional fable ) .

None of the histories that the blind work forces made about the nature of the elephant are

absolute truths, nor are the histories false. An absolute truth, or one that is true for all,

can non be achieved because of the changeless gesture of fortunes of who said it,

to

whom, when, where, why, and how it was said. Alternatively of absolute truths, the

constructs

or beliefs that the unsighted work forces claim are point of views that each one clarifies the nature of

the

elephant.

Everybody has learned to see things from his or her ain sense of ground and logic.

The

many things that people experience throughout their life-times, aid to find the

judgements toward the different issues and objects that they encounter. Because

persons

has his or her ain sense of ground and logic, the perceptual experiences that people encounter

are

finally true, and non false. Life does non incorporate one truth for any thought or object, but

truths can be found in one? s perceptual experience. It is hard to find that anything is the

absolute truth. One should non turn out that any object contains a true significance, but

should

develop constructs environing the object.

Trying to turn out anything so would be hard, if non impossible. Our senses

from

odor to values to world may differ from individual to individual. What may be true to one

individual

may be different for another. Because everybody has different perceptual experiences about life,

it is

hard to weigh the content of any construct. Every history, of its ain, is formed to be

the truth of the one person who assumes it. The assortment of constructs may hold the

virtuousness of being considered. This is how people develop a deeper sense of

apprehension for

all objects.

Truth is achieved through the construct and non the object itself. Because many

persons

keep different perceptual experiences, they have many truths to see, or non to see. For

illustration, it would be impossible to find, whether or non, the film editing of trees is

either

& # 8220 ; good & # 8221 ; or & # 8220 ; bad. & # 8221 ; One might hold the construct that cutting trees destroys places for

birds and other animate beings. Another individual might hold the construct that cutting trees

is

necessary to fulfill the demand to supply places for worlds. Whatever construct is

understood from the object, may be the truth. Merely because there may be other

point of views

to this state of affairs, does non intend that at that place has to

be false statements. The tree can be

used for many utilizations from medical specialty to paper to boats and none of these positions would

be

incorrect. The tree remains to be a tree, but the values of the tree can distinguish,

depending on who is utilizing it.

The construct of God, or the non-conception of God, is another issue that many

people

do the error of seeking to turn out. A good recognized philosopher, Soren

Kierkegaard

provinces, & # 8220 ; For if God does non be it would of class be impossible to turn out it ; and if he

[ or

she ] does be it would be folly to try it. & # 8221 ; Showing the being or non-

being of God merely produces grounds for belief, non the existent cogent evidence that God

exists.

Kierkegaard besides claims, & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; between God and his plants there exists an absolute

relationship: God is non a name but a construct & # 8221 ; ( Kierkegaard 72 ) . The relationship

between adult male and God is a construct. A individual with belief in God, can non turn out its

being through his or her ain relationship with God. Kierkegaard adds once more, & # 8220 ; The

plants of God are such that merely God can execute them & # 8221 ; We have no footing of turn outing

God? s works, nor do we cognize what sort of plants God uses on different persons.

Yet,

some spiritual groups have made the error to seek to implement their ain faith upon

different persons. Some spiritual groups claim that their faith is the lone & # 8220 ; true & # 8221 ;

faith, which is really untrue. This may be a ground why faith has been a major

factor

in old wars and motions. The effort to follow one truth, alternatively of freely

leting persons and societies to follow their ain truth, has led many people into

defeat and ill will.

All constructs are so dynamic that the truth that one believes may look to be

self-ironic.

A individual may believe that telecasting promotes force in childs, exposes the usage of

profanity, and stupidity. Another individual my believe that telecasting may be educational

because the exposure of all these jobs will organize into understanding. Although

both

may be absolutely true to each other, the two issues are found to be to be contradictory.

The dissension does non do the other statement false, but establishes another

truth.

If each of the unsighted work forces spend less clip on turn outing his ain history and pass

more clip understanding the different truths that exist, they may detect that all

perceptual experiences of the elephant can be taken into consideration. The work forces may detect

that

the elephant is a great life pillar, a great serpent, and like a crisp plowshare at the

same

clip, or at different times. The unsighted work forces may even come to the decision that the

elephant may be neither of these. The sentiments of the unsighted work forces may be invariably in

gesture because of the credence of the many point of views that presently exist and

may

exist in the hereafter. Although the elephant may remain the same, sentiments about it may

alteration and adapt.

Plants Cited

Bowie, Lee G. , Michaels, Meredith W. , Solomon, Robert C. Twenty Questions & # 8220 ; An

Introduction to Philosophy. Harcourt Brace & A ; Company, 3rd erectile dysfunction. Kierkegaard 72- 75

Handout. Traditional Parable

341