(Truth: The Science of Personal Conjecture)
Analyze and explain the epistemological implications of the following statement in terms of the lectures' and text's discussions of theories of truth and knowledge, as well as how we would live our lives (if such a statement is true): "What's true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me."
When trying to figure out anything the first thing most people do is access their standard logic. The brain is quite competent when it comes to sorting through rubble for the good and then arranging it in a useful fashion. When it is up to me, standard logic is the only tool I use to come up with a conclusion on anything. Sadly, I do not always make the rules, and so sometimes I have to follow them. Now, the rules say, that often, more than basic logical thought is required to deduce something when a basis of proof is needed. One of these above and beyonds of assaulting a problem is the standard scientific approach. This method utilizes preset standards and relations to enhance the likelihood of accuracy in a conclusion. Though this more trusted method extends beyond the realm of layman thought, it is not beyond the reach of the informed everyman, and so it can easily be used by most. Standard scientific knowledge is given more weight than solitary logic because it is the product of a group consensus. The thinking here is that if enough people buy into something then it is more likely to be broadly relevant. Even this method of supporting a claim is inadequate in many cases however, and a more powerful persuasive credential is required. This third method takes advantage of intensive studies done by other, more dedicated people. The studies which fall into this category are powerful thanks to their more specific nature. Geology, Sociology, Music Theory, etc., and yes, of course Philosophy all fall under the umbrella of this category, and each is a study into a specific thing. One of the best parts about using a focused field is that along with its unique terminology, it also provides an entire history of great minds and their discoveries to herald back to for a basis. Like choosing a medical specialist, when faced with a conundrum of Gordian proportions, it is wise to seek out those who know most about the area of understanding that puzzle falls into. Though I am tempted to take this assigned question and run with it completely on standard logic, good sense tells me it would be inadvisable. Instead, I am going to address this question to the best of my ability in all of these areas. Additionally, it may be noted that dissection and even direct reference of the actual question being answered will likely not come up until the end of this discussion. As is so often the case in Philosophical matters, there are a lot of ducks to get in a row before I can shoot them down and stuff them.
Existence and the world is one big amalgamation which even through math and science, and even under the guiding light of religion, humans are unable to comprehensively grasp - there is no human concept for it. However, what humans have been able to do (arguably to their own further disillusionment) is classify the unknown whole down into manageable parts. This wasn't done in just one continuous spreading train, but instead in many directions. For example, everything could be divided into the sky, the earth, and the sea, then the earth could be divided into the grasslands, tundras, deserts, etc., and then the grasslands further divided. Everything could also be divided into the five senses which record it, and then the sense, taste, cold be divided into the salty, sweet, bitter, and sour flavors, before sweet is divided into the magnitudes of sweetness, or augmented by the addition of heat. It can even be divided into the elements of the Periodic Table, and then into the isotopes of those elements, or each element at a different temperature or pressure. The point of all this is that every definition which there is on this planet is an empty clarifying reference towards a whole which is undefined. In the most extreme reality of the matter, nothing humans say or think actually has any weight or value - all the real value is in the thing to which those words and thoughts, at least in part, refer to. Let's pretend that everyone's world, their existence as a whole, is represented by a number (for this paper, I am using “world” and “existence” interchangeably) The truth which make up the whole of that world is an equation which equals that number. Each individual is free to combine different numbers in different ways to reach the solution. The equation would be the broad scope of all personal truths, with each part of it an individual personal truth which goes into making up the whole. The problem with using a mathematical equation, is that all of existence is not quantifiable. Now, one could refer to it as a variable, but even then there would be the implication of value, albeit unknown. Let's say that Sally's truth of the world is 3+4-5=y and Tommy's truth of the world 2-9+1=y and they get together one day for coffee. At first glance, it would seem that both Sally and Tommy can have these truths of their own without issue, after all, both of them view the world as “y”, and it is true, after a moment or two of conversation both have confirmed that the other lives in the same world as they do. Once they begin to interact with one another however, they begin to find discrepancies. For sake of ease, I will use the well trod issue of spiritual belief, understanding that by many considerations faith is not a truth of any kind, but finding myself at a loss for another good divider of men. So, Sally's -4 (obviously there is no actual function to the symbols as I use them) in her equation is Christianity and a firm belief in Jesus, while Tommy's +1 in his own is the idea of reincarnation through the greater consciousness of the whole (Tommy's parents were hippies). Sally knows for sure within herself that her truth is right, Tommy feels the same way, and yet both are faced with someone who sees a truth different from their own. They are now confused as to how the same answer could have been reached by both if each has a different version of the truth which makes up that whole. Is it a paradox, or is there magic beyond understanding at work here? Is existence here on earth, then, actually one long Twilight Zone episode? Perhaps, but more likely no. What we are dealing with is the fiber or foundation which leads to the understanding of what I believe to be the case: that there are no innate truths. Before jumping the gun to my conclusion, however, I first promised to go over the more collegian take on the subject of truth.
