Context is all. Does this mean that there is no thing as the truth?

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

“Context is all” (Margaret Atwood). Does this mean that there is no such thing as truth?

It is difficult to imagine a world in which no truths exist, which is perhaps why we are eager to accept some things as absolutely true. As our understanding of the world is limited, it is debatable whether truths which we perceive in our reality can ever be considered absolute. For example, it could be claimed that in mathematics and the natural sciences, absolute truths, such as the existence of gravity or the fact that potassium is more reactive than sodium, subsist. However, the existence of these ‘absolute truths’ could be partially accounted for by humans’ limited capacity and ability to understand and perceive things.

An example of our limited understanding is apparent in mathematics. Most high school students learn Euclidean geometry in school, which, for example, teaches us, as an absolute truth, that two parallel lines never meet. Euclidean geometry serves our reality well in the sense that we can use it and perceive it and conduct lives which do not contradict it. However, it is not the only geometric theory, and other schools of mathematical thought, such as Elliptic and Hyperbolic geometry also exist. They differ from the Euclidean theory mainly in their concepts of parallel lines as, for example, in Elliptic geometry parallel lines always meet. It is incredibly difficult for us to comprehend this if we have been brought up to think in Euclidean terms, because we have a hard time imagining something that we cannot connect with the world we live in. Thus an example of Elliptic geometry, which relates to our reality, has been constructed: the lines of longitude on a globe are parallel, but as they exist in a spherical space, they curve and intersect at the ‘poles’ of the globe. Thus parallel lines do meet. Because some concepts are beyond our capacity to imagine, it is easy to accept those notions which we can imagine, as absolute truths. These absolute truths, however are only true in certain paradigms, such as Euclidean geometry, and are relative in a larger context.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Ethics is an area of knowledge in which truth is often considered to be relative, as what is right or wrong does not correspond to facts like it does in mathematics and sciences. In these areas of knowledge, things can be proven right or wrong empirically, but morale decisions are different, as whether something is right or wrong depends mostly on one’s opinions, which are often culturally dependent. For example I would argue that capital punishment is always morally wrong largely due to the environment in which I have been raised. Someone, like the governor of Texas, might argue that the capital punishment is morally right, because of the environment in which they have been raised. This shows that in ethics truth is rather relative, though some people argue that there are absolute truths in ethics. Perhaps this is true, and some things such as rape or murder, can never be justified and are thus always wrong. In this case the relativity would come into play in the decision between the lesser of two or more evils; for example in deciding whether one person’s pain and suffering is acceptable if it leads to the happiness of another.

But if everything is relative and thus context is, in fact, all, can truth exist? At this point it is perhaps important to differentiate truth from The Truth, a state in which everything is absolute and context is irrelevant. As we have already said, if truth is a set of beliefs which correspond to the reality which we perceive, then it only exists in that paradigm and is relative in a larger context. This is a limited, although pragmatic, truth, which enables us to function in our own reality. It exists even when context is all, as it is an individual truth; what is true in my perception of reality, is perhaps not true in yours. It is vital to establish that individual truth and belief are not synonyms and so even if I believe in unicorns, this does not mean that it is true that they exist in my reality.

History is one area where individual truth becomes quite apparent as it is an area of knowledge where context is very significant. History can not be proven empirically and, though some facts such as ‘Britain declared war on Germany on September the 3rd 1939’ can be called true as there is considerable evidence to prove them, questions such as ‘who started the Second World War’ are extremely relative and are almost impossible to define absolutely true answers for. Individual truths ranging from polar opposites to small disagreements can exist in History almost directly as a consequence of context being so central. Therefore almost any viewpoint is liable to be justified, but only if it can be backed with enough facts. Facts are an aspect of truth which I would define as truths which humans have created or caused and to which context is irrelevant, such as the way we divide time into years and months and days. All units of weight or length, for example, are truths created by humans and it is irrelevant whether they are different in other paradigms as they have been created to function exclusively in our reality.

If nearly anything can be justified through context, can anything be true? This question leads to the argument of: as individual truth is only true in its context, it can not be considered an absolute and universal truth, The Truth. It is debatable whether a universal Truth exists at all, but if it did, then I would define it as such: a state towards which we strive in all our areas of knowledge, in which all truth is absolute. It is a state which exists, but that we can not reach when what we know is relative to its context. Even in our reality now, there are trends in our areas of knowledge which might suggest that we are moving towards an absolute truth, even though at the moment we can not reach it. For example in history, there can only exist one true course of events even though different versions will arise. It is hard, if not impossible, to write a history for 6 billion people, but in spite of this, a truth about the real proceedings of our actions will always subsist though we might never reach it.

In ethics, evidence of the existence of a larger Truth can be seen for example in certain moral codes, which are universal, such as do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The fact that some moral values such as this are implemented in most societies could be considered proof of an absolute moral truth. This moral truth could be the result of pragmatism as certain moral values just make life easier. For example murder is often considered wrong and is punishable in almost all societies, as it would be tedious to have to fear for your life constantly. However, trends in societies’ moral values could also be considered an effect of cultural imperialism, where certain morals are only being implemented globally because they are held by powerful and thus influential societies.

The areas of knowledge where a larger Truth is most apparent are mathematics and science. In both these areas of knowledge, individual truths do not exist in the same way as they do in for example history and ethics. However, as was already stated previously, they do not necessarily have absolute truths either as our capacity to understand and our capability to perceive is limited. Nevertheless, this does not mean that what we do perceive and understand is false and so, as humans and technology develop, who is to say that we could not eventually achieve a complete understanding of the mathematics and science of the universe; a universal mathematical and scientific Truth.

If context is all, and everything is relative, then truth can exists in the form of pragmatic individual truths, or as a larger Truth to which we strive, but which we have failed to reach as of yet. However, when do we know that we’ve reached this state of Truth? There will always be the possibility that our senses have deceived us or our capacity to understand is too limited for us to realize that our perception is flawed. And is it really important to reach this state of Truth? Is it enough for us to have truths which serve our reality and to dismiss that which is perhaps irrelevant for our existence, such as Elliptic or Hyperbolic geometry? Perhaps we should appreciate the diversity and possibility that context dependency provides us with, as the idea of, for example, indisputable moral values seems daunting and even oppressive.

Word Count: 1462

Saltsman Eric, Non-Euclidian Geometry

Online at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7997/noneuclid.html