Читать книгу The Image Of Time - Aurelio Grande Rodríguez - Страница 13

ABOUT THE TRUTH

There isn´t concept more problematic, debatable and utilitarian than the truth, since the legitimacy of everything that´s observed, felt, thought and said depends on it. There´s, therefore, no greater security than that of a situation that can be identified with absolute precision; the truth would then be in what it is and not in what a mere representation appears. However, all evidence is appearance and also, how would it be possible to achieve true knowledge, when the last data of the experience is by its very primary character, an unverifiable referent?

In any case, the truth would be justified by something that, regardless of its legitimacy, is credible and produces a calculated and predictable effect; like any pragmatic contraption.

Although the arguments are many, the utilitarian meaning of the truth as such isn´t the most important thing, because the only thing that really matters is the effect that follows about whether something, is considered true or false; for the consequences that follow. In fact, in ordinary experience, the truth is null or very scarce, in science it´s relative and in religion it isn´t even discussed. However, the truth resists and is fundamental in philosophy, but not in all or in all who practice it; It´s not a fact either, since like any reference, it only marks a trend.

Everything that surrounds us deceives us or lies to us, just as appearances deceive us, so do other people (of which we´re all part) and this is shown by daily experience; they lie to us and we lie to ourselves consciously and also unconsciously. Just as they deceive us, we also continually deceive, without realizing that we´re doing so many times.

Truth is an abstract word that most people use with indifference in their speeches and discussions, in their books and in their mistakes, whether by affirmation, mistake or by lying to deceive and confuse; this is, more or less, the opinion that Voltaire had of his concept about his practical concept.

The two great ideological paradigms of history, such as religion and science, justify their positions by applying the well-known argument of truth in all their statements; and they do it from positions that seem totally different and even exclusive. It´s here where the intention acquires the relevant role that determines the projection of their ideologies. Religion, as a function of revelation and science through experience, grandly expose their own truths; unilateral, contrary in appearance and equal by reference. Even so, on not a few occasions they´re coincident in the experience of the same subject, but they´re always innate to the species; for some issues that aren´t relevant for now -just for now.

Consequently, there would be some revealed truths existing a priori that don´t need to be verified, and others acquired that, when verified a posteriori, are considered confirmed. Both positions would be in their respective fields, absolute and indisputable, being essentially practical because beyond all discussion, the only important thing is acceptance.

We´re so used to simulation that the representation of a hypothetical reality has become our way of life for a long time; perhaps forever, as a cultural-social and personal reason. We simulate everything, both by what we learn through education and by what we see in ordinary experience, then we continue it on our own; it´s an everyday sociology of which we are hardly aware. It´s because of conventions, paradigms and traditions, added to the systematic use of metaphor, that we no longer distinguish the false from the true, and what is more serious; we ignore the meaning of these concepts and the logic that links them and distinguishes. It happens that referring to the facts, both the false and the true are realities that, as such, cause effects that intervene in the experience with the same legitimacy. Because however they are, both meanings are part of it and after all, that which we so surely identify with reality, we don't even know exactly whether it´s apparent or true -at least, for the moment. However, in this problematic dilemma there´s something that is shown in a very strange way, since what is true is usually doubtful and what is false on the other hand, to be thus considered it´s obliged as such, to be effectively true; and in either case, the experience will always be true.

When we reflect by dint of doubts, contradictions and disappointments, we stop believing that something can deserve the title of true and that any certainty can be confirmed. However, a paradox arises from this same rule, since not even these conclusions would turn out to be true -they would therefore end up confirming what they deny. Beyond the false and the true, everything somehow works, in the dynamics of the facts only they command; at least, as long as the correspondence relationship between a form and what it contains isn´t considered.

The meaning of the word "truth" is due to the use made of it, a concept that´s used as an argument of reality, correspondence and legitimacy, but it´s also the one that makes us most suspicious. The truth is that, if there were any irrefutable and absolute, it wouldn´t need any proof because it would already be by itself; in this truth the meaning would be above any meaning.

The truth and the truths - myths and facts

Although it´s often said that the truth is absolute, it´s also said that there´re at least two varieties, which also means, there´re two methods to arrive at it and that they would be, by reflection or by experience; Some as truths of reason and the others, in fact. Those statements whose truth originates in reason, would be considered a priori, while those whose truth is derived from empirical verification would be a posteriori; associated with them the concepts of theory and practice.

Being in the truth the legitimate knowledge about a reality of an objective nature, we say that this is completely different from opinion and belief, since the latter are considered as particular or subjective attitudes that depend on interpretation and assumption. The truth would then be a knowledge that can and should be demonstrated in such a way that there are no longer doubts and also, it resists time; this means, a true statement shouldn´t be falsifiable and wouldn´t make progress -therefore it would be eternal. However, it must comply with a requirement of principle: to be considered valid, a statement must be a priori, necessarily true. This leads us along a circular path that puts us back at the starting point, because if a previous and indisputable truth is not known with which a statement can be contrasted, we can never be sure of what we think and define. It´s with this procedure that we arrive at axiomatic models, which without ceasing to represent a necessary and effective reference principle, run the risk of ending up turning any knowledge into an arbitrary statement; even being rational, it´s still a conjecture.

That conceptual fracture between reason and experiment should ideologically differentiate the legitimacy of knowledge, marking contradictory positions between ideas and facts; after which the truth would no longer be so important. Ultimately it´s a matter of rhetorical principles, where only the triumph of one position over the other would be of interest; a struggle that without the backing of logic can´t be justified. In these differences there also seems to be a distinction in the very concept of justification, since it distinguishes between experience of reason and experience of fact as if this were possible; and the experience could occur without the help of reason or the resource of interpretation - which isn´t a minor problem, it´s a contradiction. This unfolding of the experience doesn´t make much sense either, since whatever the modality, this is always for the subject an experience of consciousness, or he wouldn´t be aware of it.

In this case, as in any condition based on ambiguous explanations, an excess is observed in the causal argumentation, as if the truth, even being only one, had two equally valid justification alternatives; although in any case they would be relative or contradictory.

At first, the concept of truth would be based on a correspondence between the world itself and this same world as it´s thought after being perceived; assuming that all these moments coincide in the same space-time point -the mirror and the immediacy of the process. It´s precisely this requirement that invalidates the process, since the simultaneity of events that´re causal and consequential is not possible; nothing can immobilize and nothing that has succession, can prevent time from passing.

This bears a subtle resemblance to what´s known as con conceptual truth, where the logical aspect is the determining factor of truth or falsehood; as can be seen, for example, in the terms of an equation -the validation of its expression being in the correspondence of its members -condensed in an instant without projection- where the truth would be in equality.

As the truth should be the quality of the true, considering the truth as something abstract would no longer have much use, now it would only be necessary to consider the true -the important thing would no longer be an abstract truth but in the true- the evidences that are derived from the facts.

The representation

Depending on the perception and the sensitive nature of the evidence, if these are understood as the legitimate aspect of things due to the practical effect of the form, the truth would be established with the representation; then leaving the image, as a real meaning and at the same time, apparent -thus, being conceptually contradictory. We know that the concept of appearance is synonymous with representation, so even though this is real, by definition it´s also opposed to what is true but even so, it can´t be false either; because in that case it would represent the true – it´s a logical question and also a game of meanings. Reality and truth aren´t exactly coincident concepts, but they try to identify each other, so the images are true and at the same time, they´re also apparent issues -which probably can´t be justified.

The illusionist knows a lot about this because cheating is his job, properly manipulating the facts, he uses distraction and deception to convince the spectator, making him believe as amazing and true, something that was always false and misleading; but precisely for this reason, the technique that he uses for deception is true and effective. Therefore the true, even though it´s false, is the logical and consequent result of a correct procedure; this game of concepts is what confuses the most. The images are implemented to provoke visual effects and whatever the context, the evidence will always be appearances; magic satisfies the requirements of experience by making the expectation of a fantasy come true. This is what science often does, counting on the unrestricted support of an educated common sense that there isn´t doubt because believing in the method, it trusts the system; even also, those who, knowing the falsehood, accept it because they like it or it suits them - ideologies entertain them.

The facts are apparent and inevitably deceive us, but we can discover them because the evidence has flaws, contradictions, ambiguities and inconsistencies that are generally not taken into account. To discover what really happens, requires a serious and exhaustive logical analysis, but most especially, putting aside some prejudices -or perhaps almost all of them.