The truth and the true


When talking about or discussing any topic that seeks to reach the truth, it is necessary to first know some basic premises.

First, there is a difference between truth and true, then you have to differentiate between belief and science, and then you have to differentiate between appearance or essence.

The truth is that which is objectively true, by and for itself, that which constitutes science or knowledge, is that which is true in essence, that is, that it is true.

When one speaks of the true, one speaks of what is relatively true, of what is true in relation to something else. Belief on their part is opinion, the subjective version of facts, that which is true only in appearance, that is, that which appears to be true.

All opinions are true in appearance, as they represent what seems to be for someone in particular, since for someone to have the belief that something is true it must be true in their eyes. And all appearances are true as long as they exist, because they exist they are real, and because they are real they are true, even if only as appearance. From this it follows that all opinions are true and worthy of respect because they represent something that while not objectively true, does represent something that is apparently true, and therefore true in some sense.

Think of all the opinions you have ever heard, of aliens, gods, giants, angels and demons, etc., all represent something that is subjectively true, that is, that is true for the subject, and that therefore appears to be true for him. All these opinions, although they are not the truth, because many of them contradict each other, they are true, because they represent something that is true in appearance, because it appears to be true for someone in the world, and they exist as truth as appearance.

All opinions are true, but not all opinions are the truth.

The truth is that which is objectively true, it is that essence that transcends appearances and that is true, not only as for you or me, it is not subjectively as opinion or relative as consensus, but objective as truth for all, even for those who don't believe it or don't accept it.

From this it follows that falsehood is only an illusion, that which appears to be true, and is true but only in appearance and not in essence, it is true but it is not the truth. For no one in his right mind, not even madly, would believe as true something that does not seem so to him.

And don't misunderstand what I say, I don't say that all opinions are objectively true, nor that all are equally valid, only that all opinions, however extraordinary they may seem, have some truth in them, and that is what It makes them plausible. Falsehood is nothing more than the appearance itself of anything, and even it is real as an appearance, therefore, it is also true, though not truth.

Perhaps this little reflection serves as a reference to learn to be more tolerable with foreign opinions, and to better understand each other, since each one has a "truth" on their own terms, which is not "truth" but "opinion", and that in order to understand it, we simply have to see the world from its point of view to realize the validity of its words at least in terms of likelihood.

Truth is not true, science (knowledge) is not equal to belief, and essence is not equal to appearance. But appearance and belief are true, and what is true participates in the truth at some point.


Image Source: 1


Comments 4


To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

06.02.2020 21:01
0

Interesting read! I resonate with a lot of what you said, especially in regard to people having their own truths even if those truths aren't some kind of ultimate, absolute and universal truth.

I do have one question though, it seems like you are making a distinctino between true and truth and when I look at the modern and etymological dictionaries I'm not sure I see that distinction. Furthermore, the words true and truth both have distinct historical connections to "faith", isn't that interesting?

Faith is associated with trust and oftentimes believing in something even if there isn't sufficient evidence, like in a God or Heaven or Devil and things like that, they can't prove it is true, yet they have "faith" that it is.

So... What is truth really? If even the etymological history suggests a strong connection to faith which from my perspective is often almost opposite the of such? Hmm. Interesting to think about. Thanks for sharing.

truth (n.)
Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) "faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant," from Germanic abstract noun treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz "having or characterized by good faith," from PIE drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast." With Germanic abstract noun suffix -itho (see -th (2)).

true (adj.)
Old English triewe (West Saxon), treowe (Mercian) "faithful, trustworthy, honest, steady in adhering to promises, friends, etc.," from Proto-Germanic treuwaz "having or characterized by good faith" (source also of Old Frisian triuwi, Dutch getrouw, Old High German gatriuwu, German treu, Old Norse tryggr, Danish tryg, Gothic triggws "faithful, trusty"), from PIE drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast."

06.02.2020 21:18
0

Interesting, indeed.

The distinction I make does not start from a past or present use of the word, but from the premise that the truth is one, eternal and immutable, while there are many true things, and that those true things are also part of the truth.
Thanks and regards!

06.02.2020 22:43
0

I see. Thanks for clarifying. You're welcome and regards to you as well. :)

07.02.2020 00:29
0