Mathematics is an area of knowledge which consistently produces justifiable and reliable truths. For instance, when I was taught multiplication, at first I did not understand why it was happening, I was to used adding with my fingers and if I had to even with my toes. But, when my teacher explained the concept of multiplication it went from Greek and Latin to plain common sense. When I saw 8 plus 8 would give me 16 ,and 8 multiplied into 2 gives me 16.It was all clear .The number adding itself to an extent which is the “2”. By understanding the concepts behind the facts, I am easily able to recognize and accept these universal truths. Behind every concept and every equation in the field of mathematics, there is a proof or an explanation for why something works. Thus, in mathematics, truths are “hard” truths because they are always able to be proven. But is it always safe to say that if a mathematical concept can be proven, then it must be a truth? In the field of mathematical induction, one is given an equation to prove and must do so using manipulation of identities. However, one must assume the equation is true and provable. And one can also incorrectly manipulate formulas to prove that equation. In this instance, the truth behind mathematical induction is heavily dependent on trust. The underlying assumption is that what one is trying to prove must be true. In this scenario, mathematical truths fit into the gray area between “hard” and “soft” truths.

In the arts, there are a myriad of interpretations regarding works of literature, paintings, pictures, and music. Similar to mathematical truths, the concrete facts behind each work of art are all there. But, one manipulates these facts by using bits and pieces of them to provide support for a claim. There is a song my artist Mohombi called “In Your Head”.Mohombi says his tune for the song is his own composition, but I can argue saying that the same tune is heard in the song “Cranbaries” by Zombie. By using evidence from the music to prove Mohombi mimics that tune, my claim then becomes a personal truth because I have specific evidence. However, I strongly feel such truths in the arts are affected by whom they are justified by. For example, if at an art exhibition, two men are discussing whether the painting is marvellous or not. And if one of them was an experienced art critic whereas the other one was a new art critic .i would take sides of that of the experienced one. Most likely, I would not investigate his claim. But that same trust would not exist for the new critic. Regardless of the validity of their arguments, I would value the “soft” truth the critic holds to a higher level. Just like “hard” truths in mathematics, “softer” truths in the arts encompass, but are more affected by, an element of trust. Since “soft” truths rely on a level of personal interpretation and facts, this subjectivity alters the quality of such a truth. In El Greco’s (Spanish Artist) famous painting, View of Toledo, the Spanish city is distorted. With barely any knowledge of art history, even I could tell that that El Greco portrayed the city in an unnatural, ugly fashion. The truth that I derived from the painting was based on evidence, but it was an elementary and superficial “soft” truth. After much research on the painting and the painter I interpreted the distortion further by stating El Greco’s possible motives. The knowledge of the painter’s background allowed me to formulate a more profound truth. Thus, the qualities of our truths varied because, based off prior knowledge, we knew different facts about El Greco. In the arts, this scenario is especially prevalent as scholars can make better interpretations than ordinary individuals about works of art.

Unlike the mostly uniform quality of “hard” truths in mathematics, the quality of “soft” truths in the arts depends heavily upon the individual making the claim and his or her background.

Although soft, truths are prevalent in the arts, they are even more widespread in the area of ethics. As my mom was speeding to drop me at school, she was well over 100 kmph .My mom did not notice the traffic police parked behind the bushes. We went past him, and a few seconds later we had flashing lights in our rear mirrors. Busted .He fined my mom a heavy load. In this situation, I do not think the cop should have used this sly, deceiving method to catch speeders. But this brings up the point of whether different, more subjective truths are as reliable. From my perspective, obviously, I do not believe what the cop did was right, but that opinion is partly due to the fineI my mom received from him. Yet, from the cop’s perspective, he probably thought his action to be ethical because he was only trying to maintain public safety and enforce the law. There are two contradictory “soft” truths here, but both are right. In this case, there is a blending of emotions and obligations with ethics, affecting the reliability of any individual truths able to be drawn from the situation. Therefore, the two truths cannot be individually considered but, rather, must be looked at as a pair. Both perspectives need to be presented and analysed and then an individual may form his or her own “soft” truth. Because of these truth’s dependency upon emotions, at what point should a fine line be drawn between personal opinions and “soft” truths actually based on some evidence? Honestly, I do not think such a separation is necessary. They go hand-in-hand with each other and “soft” truths ought to be built off opinions, emotions, and facts.

It is interesting to note the following contradiction: truths in ethics may be dependent on societal guidelines instead and leave out emotion completely. For instance, in Indian culture, younger individuals must show immense respect to elders, known or strangers .Possibly by give up their seats in buses if someone significantly older steps on. Whenever I use public transportation , I have to abide by this unspoken rule. Without even thinking about it, I just automatically stand up if someone older than my parents gets on the bus. But if I did not stand up, another passenger would and it would make me seem rude. I feel there is almost an ulterior motive behind this truth in order to meet and fulfil societal guidelines. At this point, it is not a consideration of what I should do, but rather what I need to do. Because these guidelines are essentially rules, they ought to be followed and this truth becomes a “hard” truth. It lacks subjectivity because it is now based on rules and guidelines rather than on emotions and feelings. Similar to how mathematical truths do not rely on emotions, there are cases in ethics where truth and emotions become mutually exclusive.

In conclusion, truth is interpreted in disparate fashions in mathematics, the arts, and ethics. While mathematics is comprised of “hard” truths, the arts and ethics are almost completely made of “soft” truths. However, different factors affect the quality of these “hard” and “soft” truths, what we use on a daily basis to better understand ourselves and our world.