Lukacs has several setbacks that may cause different people to form several conclusions.
Untruth seems to be whatever is not truth. Why did he just not use lie or a falsity instead?
Those are both conscious decisions and Lukacs knows that untruth as a whole may be
unconscious and we do not merely choose to deny the truth. Untruth ergo is ignorance; it
is that we don’t know we are wrong. Also, Lukacs uses the word ‘survive’. He makes it
seem that truth is being threatened by something, which in this case may be unawareness
itself. The word ‘somehow’ implies that he is expressing uncertainty or hesitation about
its survival and thus depends on the ‘decay’ of untruth. Lukacs makes it seem as though
time is what will destroy untruth, because ‘decay’ refers to the destruction of something
over a period of time. All of these different views must be taken into consideration before
discussing their relevance to the areas of knowledge. The areas of knowledge that will be
explored here will be the sciences, mathematics, history, and ethics/politics. Each of these
areas provides their own interpretations and explanations.
Science, along with mathematics, seems to be seen as one of the most truthful of
the different areas of knowledge. This is because there is so much research and tests that
go into determining whether something is true or not in science. When there is an
instance in which something does not acquiesce an answer, then people go to science for
an explanation. The scientific method demonstrates that over time, untruth decays and
truth will live. The method includes testing certain theories over and over until the
outcomes can determine that the theory is true. The original theory must be changed or
even thrown out when new data is found, thus weeding out all untruth and preserving the
truth. In my life, I have experienced how scientific principles change over time. When I
was young, Pluto was regarded as a planet. Now, it is considered just an asteroid. Is this
the truth? Or do we think it is the truth?
In mathematics, the theories and laws that it presents are rarely challenged.
Everything is what it is in mathematics and thus it is generally not doubted. This is why it
is an integral part of the sciences. It holds true in many situations, ranging from
astronomy and quantum mechanics to physics and chemistry. Some calculations that can
be made using mathematics include finding out how fast our universe is expanding,
computation of the electrical potential of a human heart, and measuring the decay of a
radioactive element. It is obvious that much truth and knowledge is found within
mathematics and no matter how long the “long run” lasts, humans will find mathematics
to be a source of truth. In my own experience, I have noticed that knowledge of
mathematics builds off of itself. A very compelling example of this is when I was
learning trigonometry. At each level, I thought I understood it and felt good about myself.
However, to actually learn the subject, the simplifications of trigonometry had to decay
for me to understand the subject. I had to go deeper and deeper during the nine weeks that
I studied trigonometry to fully understand the subject.
History seems to be more merciful when it comes to sorting out what is true and
what is not true. Everyday, we gain new insight about our lives and the things around us;
some people see that as progress, while others see it as a decline of our knowledge. Is
history a progress or decay of our knowledge? It seems that throughout history, the truth
has presented itself after certain events of untruth. However, how many cover-ups are
there in history that we not know about? We are each the artist of our own lives and
control our future. As a result, mankind can be seen as the artist of our history. We can
always change the “truth of our existence” and it is different for each person. I have
several friends who went through religious conversions and claim that the period of their
previous religion was full of darkness and obscurity. My experiences with them tell me
that in their own view, untruth has decayed in the presence of the new truth (their new
religion).
Ethics and politics over time have clearly showed us that it is entirely societal
opinion. In the past, slavery was acceptable and practiced in the United States. It was this
idea that split our country in half and we went to war because of it. Now, it is not
practiced anymore and is ‘morally’ unacceptable. Several other examples like this include
suicide or murder for ‘honor’ and the lower status of women, which just do not seem
natural in our day and age. Although it does seem that the ethics of a society change
rapidly over time, several principles are the same within many cultures around the world.
These principles generally tell an individual not to murder, rape, or steal. Perhaps modern
ethics does represent actual progress, since more educated people are able to voice their
opinions. However, does this necessarily imply that it is better for the human race, or do
people now have the power to think for themselves and do what they want?
Essentially, you cannot replace untruth with truth if you do not know what the
meaning of truth is in the first place. The reason that I did not discuss the arts is that there
is just no standard to compare them. How do you define truth and untruth in the arts? I
am pretty sure that Michelangelo is different from van Gogh who are both different from
DaVinci. Which artist has more truth in his work? How do we know? Under what
standard can we determine that? These same questions apply to music, architecture, and
literature. We all gain experience and insight from our daily experiences, but truth can be
very elusive. Each area of knowledge requires its own interpretation and explanation of
Lukacs’ statement. We can say that it is basic human nature to build, destroy, and remake
what we know as knowledge.
