Kim, 1

Timothy Hyeunggyu Kim Ms. H. Michael Theory of Knowledge January 25th, 2010

"There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false." Discuss this claim.
Philosophy, in its very nature, is a subject encumbered with myriads of vexed ideas and concepts, which demonstrate most distinctively the complexities that exist in human thought. When superficially analyzed, one may recognize philosophy to be a large jargon of meaningless questions which often lack definitive solution, yet when delved in depth, philosophy denotes the identity of human civilization and allows for comprehension of many things. Within this realm of numerous abstract inquiries, the most practical yet imperative aspect that gives rise to all philosophical debates is, arguably, the 'search for truth' and the main purpose of many theories of knowledge is in fact to differentiate between truths and falsehoods. However, in differing areas of knowledge, the concept of truth is extremely relative to multiple factors and there are no distinctions between seemingly simple and mutually exclusive terms: truth and falsity. When we examine our society, many things seem to have specifically allocated characteristics which are discrete from all other things. Many great thinkers of history have argued for the existence of absolute truths, conveying the idea that "an entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth"1 and indeed this objectivity can often be found in different areas, notably mathematics and natural sciences. However, ambivalence exists in all areas and the contradicting theory of how the distinctions between truths and falsities are indiscernible is also

Robiner, Steven. "Absolute Truth." Temple of Reason. Web. December 30th, 2009.

Kim, 2

coherent, especially in ethics. In this exists one's obligation to further investigate and determine how one obtains knowledge through different ways of knowing, specifically language and reason, two of the most disputable methodologies, when these complex theories taint the simplest yet the most significant concept in the universe: Truth. Reason, one of our primary ways of obtaining knowledge, plays an extremely critical role in determining what is true and what is false and it often seems as though, in reason, all things are discretely categorized in terms of logical coherence and proofs, similarly to math. When examined, mathematics is found to be a subject which is made up of fundamental principles from which all other complex concepts are deduced, such as how simple logical concept of additions gave rise to multiplications, exponents, logarithms, and eventually calculus, and many rules to prevent logical flaws such as the prevention of division through zero as it is incoherent. Regardless of gender, cultural background or ethical beliefs, the state of truth of mathematically sound proofs, such as " " or " ( ) ( ) ( )", are unchanged as long as the basic

mathematical principles hold. We may question a newly discovered claim in mathematics and even the ones which have been upheld for quite a time yet due to the rock solid axioms in which all mathematics is established upon, logical justifications in accordance with the principles are simply undisputable. As reason is a basis for mathematics, it is often claimed that mathematics provides fundamental basis for natural sciences, and one can undoubtedly find, once again, that scientific truths can be easily distinguished from scientific falsities. In science, the general consensus is that all truths are theories or explanations for phenomena in nature that cannot be or have not been disproven and indeed from this, one can disprove the claim that there aren't any absolute distinctions between truths and falsities. The fact that a body accelerates when a force is applied is inherently true as Newton's second law of motion, ( ), has never been disproven while spontaneous

Kim, 3

generation has been disproven through biogenesis theory, causing the former to be objectively false. Hence, both in natural sciences and in mathematics, where reason provides a solid logical foundation, the distinctions between what is true and what is false are practically absolute and infallible in all facets. However, this clear-cut distinction can only exist in utopian conceptualities and in reality, there exists many counter-claims that strongly disprove such ideas in numerous areas, notably in ethics. These clashes of ideas justly illustrate the complexities and paradoxes in our world and as Shakespeare mentioned, "There is some soul of goodness in things evil,"2 one can indeed extend this to realize that there must be some soul of truth in things erroneous3, upholding the primary claim in question. The ambiguities and the complex paradoxes exist certainly through vexed societies in which we live in but it is undisputable that these things exist also due to language as it gives rise to the ambiguities to the most common aspects of our lives and to the entire world. Language is a very valuable tool through which we obtain knowledge and indeed without language, none of the areas of knowledge would properly function since one wouldn't be able to communicate the meaning of an artwork nor would history continue to be retold. Nonetheless, the polysemy and the miscommunications which occur due to languages, not to mention the complexities involved between differing languages, are unavoidable. Analogously, ethics, in its very nature, is a shaky ground in which there exists no solidlybased axioms like mathematics nor is there an accepted methodology, like in natural sciences, where one easily distinguishes the validity or truth of a theorem. In fact, the concept of ethics is, in its entirety, intangible and subjective to society, personal values, experiences, etc. Thus, not only is it difficult to draw a justifiable line of distinction between truths and falsehoods in ethical grounds, but

Shakespeare, Williams. Henry V. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print. Act 4, Scene 1. Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953. Print. P. 274.

Kim, 4

the very concepts of ethical truths and ethical falsities don't seem to exist. Consequently, we are left to examine ethical and unethical dilemmas and even in these opposite circumstances, there seems to be no distinction absolute enough to distinguish between them. For example, during the time of Japanese domination in Asia, Japanese regiments have conducted vivisections on humans without anaesthetic. This is, within contemporary western ethical standards, an inherently unjustifiable act where the most fundamental human rights are violated. However, this is just a relativistic ideology held by an ordinary western perspective and because at the time, the Japanese's moral belief coincided with this act, it could very well be deemed justifiable. Furthermore, this gruesome act became a great contribution to the development in the medical field and has saved thousands of patients' lives. Ergo, it can be proven that even the most seemingly immoral dilemmas can be both ethical and unethical. This paradox exists due to the intangible nature of ethics and languages inevitable manipulation and because ethics plays such an imperative role in our society, the claim that there exists little distinctions between truth and falsity is highly advocated. This debate of the existence of absolute distinction is apparent in our society not just through vague abstractions but in simple aspects of our lives because from personal experiences, I can indeed relate to how these two sides have affected my perspective of the difference between two contrasting subject areas. As a student educated in three different countries, taught in four different languages, and as a child of parents who were raised in two different countries, I could easily observe cultural interactions and could compare between different areas of knowledge in different societies. When I examine my own experience in education, it is once again apparent that mathematics and sciences are areas full of absolutism because in every question of a typical examination, there existed only one right answer and I've always completely understood the justification for receiving a certain mark on those tests. Contrarily, when I have received an essay or any writing piece which was marked, it never seemed to be completely justified of why I've obtained that specific mark, whether high or low. Therefore, between the true and the false response in mathematics tests, there existed a definite

Kim, 5

distinction whereas in social studies, language arts or other subjective areas of knowledge, there didn't exist a real distinction between 'True or False'. Furthermore, I could personally experience the nature of the two subjects in different countries and indeed, in ethics or in social studies, the curricula were completely different in all countries due to cultural, political and social influence, whereas in mathematics, the truth was universal. Despite this, the lack of distinction between truths and falsehoods also extends into mathematics and science, two of the most solid areas, and this allows us to realize an ambiguity in which truth is ubiquitously endangered. Tentativeness of science, in the end, cannot be denied as even the most profoundly believed theories such as geocentric models have been disproven. Although hardly disputable, axioms are still human inventions and these intrinsic presuppositions which give rise to all mathematics might in fact be incorrect. These arguments are among the strongest that provide us with reason to regard the seemingly absolute areas, mathematics and sciences, with more caution. Contrarily, there exists a universal belief that ethical standards such as right to life, freedom of choice amongst other prominent ideas are irrefutable absolutes regardless of gender, culture or experience. Philosophers have held strong beliefs, sometimes towards the absolute truth such as Kant and at others towards the ideology that all things are only existent in our subjective minds such as Berkeley. In this spectrum of ideologies, one can undoubtedly note that there are no definite distinctions between truths and falsehoods and furthermore, one may recognize that there have been generations of philosophers unnoticed and less ground-breaking due to their nuanced view of our metaphysical world. Thus, this nuanced perspective is the dominant philosophical belief and as one ultimately re-examines the claim, one may infer that there exists little significance in discovering the borderlines as it is the gray area in the middle, where all abstractions and ideologies converge, that allows us to truly associate with a more tangible reality. Word Count: 1600

Kim, 6

Reference Page
Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953. Print.

Robiner, Steven. "Absolute Truth." Temple of Reason. Web. December 30th, 2009. <http://templeofreason.org/cyclopedia/absolute_truth.htm>.

Shakespeare, Williams. Henry V. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print.