In this essay I will compare and contrast how ways of knowing enable us to differentiate between objective and subjective truth but we must keep in mind a few knowledge issues; cultural background distorts our attempts to distinguish between objective and subjective truths and how do we get from our subjective beliefs to objective truths. Furthermore, is emotion an effective way of distinguishing between subjective and objective truths and are there any absolutely certain objective truths independent of what we believe to be true?
Math is considered to be universal language and something very certain but can be very “wrong” at the same time. Albert Einstein said “Mathematics is well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.”2 Let’s take an example of basic math problem. In the Egyptian Right Angle Triangle, two sides, “a” and “b”, are 3 and 4 units long. The length of the hypotenuse is 3² + 4² = c² → 25 = c². Now we have to calculate square root of 25. If you say that the hypotenuse is 5 units long, you are correct but (-5)2 is also 25. Is it possible for the hypotenuse to have a negative value? Mathematically, the hypotenuse can be negative but does it correspond to reality?
Moreover, one of the most intriguing questions that arise in physics, which is closely connected to mathematics, to what extent the truth of physics is real? The latest physics has nothing to do with direct reality, i.e. quarks and black holes are never directly experienced, neither observed nor perceived due to equipment limitations but they are solely mathematical models. The example of negative sides and quarks illustrates that mathematical results do not necessary reflect reality even thought math was done correctly, i.e. purely mathematically, a negative length and quarks are not contradictory meaning they are true by the coherence but questionable by the correspondence theory. Numbers are mediators of reality and what is theoretically possible but sometimes (still) impossible in reality. If it doesn’t correspond to reality, does it mean it mean it’s not true and thus doesn’t exist?
On the other hand, art does not deal with equations and numbers. Art is not wrong or right and thus, it is illogic. Does it mean art cannot tell the truth? In order to answer this question we have to understand who the painter is; someone who paints pictures for profit, such as Tanzanian Tinga Tinga tribe3, or someone who does it as a hobby – their truths will be different. Tinga Tinga’s truth is based on hard work and necessity to survive whilst the other truth is more a luxury of being able to do something else other than your job. As a consequence we will have to talk about the truth of a viewer. When looking at Tinga Tinga’s painting of Masaai warriors, although those paintings are painted for profit, they will still manage to stir emotions inside the observer. These emotions will affect perception of the painting – perception does not distinguish illusion and the truth but it is rather based on our past experience, sensation and interpretation. If you do not want to recognise or accept these emotions there is a chance that you will not see their truth and by rejecting their truth, you will accept your interpretation and thereby make them your truth.
The great thing about art and interpretation of art however is that we all see the same, given that your eyes are working properly, but we interpret what we see differently. An example of this is the use of the number 13. In the Christian religion, the number is considered significant since there were thirteen present at the Last Supper. In the Jewish tradition, the same number signifies an age of maturity, a 13 year old Jew is said to be Bar Mitzvah. In general for Jews, 13 is more of a lucky number than an unlucky one. Amongst Chinese people, the number is regarded as a lucky number because it sounds similar to "實生", which means "must be alive". 4 The number is the same, it’s written alike, but we interpret it different based on religion or culture. As the Greek proverb says “The beauty lies in the eye of the beholder” – the truth in art is individual.
Furthermore, it is also to be noted that the opposite of the word “truth” can be taken in several different ways. One way, as exemplified in Buddhism, is delusion or illusion5. The word “illusion” is taken to be similar to with what might be termed “untruth” and the word “delusion with what might be termed “anti-truth”. In these cases, the truth is contrasted with something that merely appears to be what it is not. Today, delusion is inseparable part of politics in representative democracies. The very recent case of approving a move to ban the construction of new minarets in Switzerland has brought many controversies in Europe. Many politicians and people who agree with this ban say it is necessary because the minaret is not necessary for worship, but is rather a symbol of Islamic law, and as such incompatible with Switzerland's legal system. The move has shocked Swiss Muslims since Switzerland is a secular state and its constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression to all. In opinion of many Europeans, these minarets are seen as taking over European tradition while the Muslims believe it abuses their basic human rights. In this case the Pragmatic Theory works for both sides; it is reality that the majority of Europeans feel threaten by growing number of Islamic fundamentalists. On the contrary, Muslims feel that this will just deepen problems of assimilation and abuse their rights. Since the majority has chosen the law that abuses minority’s right, can we say that politics and democracy seek for truth or they rather accept what is believed to be truth by majority? As William Safire defines it “Parliamentary democracy is, at its heart, a system of limited adversarial mendacity, in which each party attempts to present part of the truth as if it were the whole” 6 politics is the game, and in game - the ends justify the means, where only the fittest survive who are capable of presenting their beliefs in such way that majority will see those beliefs as truth.
Are there any absolutely certain objective truths independent of what we believe to be true? If I say there is no absolute truth, I would contradict myself. How can we differ between true or not true things? Thus, does truth exist? I have come up to conclusion that truth is extremely ambiguous term and thus depends upon us in the first place. I would dare to state that both theories, The Correspondence Theory of Truth and The Pragmatic Theory of Truth, cohere with individual’s beliefs - we believe in scientifically proved theories only because we are taught so but it doesn’t mean science conveys absolute truth since many things remain unexplored so far and our understanding of the world around us rapidly changes. Religion, art and politics, as mentioned above, are seen as sociologically objective but psychologically subjective truths. The way we see those things changes throughout history and cultural and social background will distort the way we perceive it, i.e. things may become true for us, although not perceived as true by others - truth is primarily within the individual itself.
