| Popis: |
Often, it is believed that there are only two attitudes towards truth. One is to dogmatically believe in something as absolute, considering it unquestionably true (this position is sometimes mistakenly attributed to philosophers of the stature of Plato and Aristotle). The other attitude is to accept that one’s opinions are just one among many possibilities, leading to adherence to a relativistic perspective, sometimes labelled as “weak thought.” From this perspective, truth can at most be considered as historically influenced (meaning that what emerges historically as true for a certain period would be deemed so), or otherwise limited (meaning that it would be true as it appears from a certain perspective or for a certain group of people). In reality, upon careful reflection, both of these perspectives prove to be problematic and unsatisfactory. Specifically, we refer to those (like certain believers in God or, in a more modern way, in scientific truth) who consider their opinions indisputably true, thus confusing hypotheses (unproven) with principles (uncontested) in Platonic terms. Equally problematic is the attitude of those who, more modestly, admit that their opinions are as true as any other opinion argued in the same way, or that may seem historically true or true for a certain group of people with an interest in it. This attitude ultimately falls into the classic paradoxes of relativism; for instance, one who holds the opinion that relativism itself is false could easily refute it. In this paper, we will demonstrate that both attitudes represent an illusion of choice, as understanding the truth is a complex and subtle topic that goes beyond these two extreme perspectives. |
