Examples of absolute truth. Absolute and Relative Truth

Man cognizes the world, society and himself with one goal - to know the truth. And what is truth, how to determine that this or that knowledge is true, what are the criteria for truth? This article is about this.

What is truth

There are several definitions of truth. Here are some of them.

Truth is knowledge that corresponds to the subject of knowledge.
Truth is a truthful, objective reflection in the mind of a person of reality.

absolute truth - this is a complete, exhaustive knowledge of a person about something. This knowledge will not be refuted or supplemented with the development of science.

Examples: man is mortal, twice two is four.

Relative truth - this is knowledge that will be replenished with the development of science, since it is still incomplete, does not fully reveal the essence of phenomena, objects, etc. This happens due to the fact that at this stage of human development, science cannot yet reach the final essence of the subject being studied.

Example: first people discovered that substances consist of molecules, then of atoms, then of electrons, etc. As you can see, at each stage in the development of science, the idea of an atom was true, but incomplete, that is, relative.

Difference between absolute and relative truth lies in how fully this or that phenomenon or object is studied.

Remember: absolute truth has always been relative at first. Relative truth can become absolute with the development of science.

Are there two truths?

No, there are no two truths . There may be several points of view on the subject being studied, but the truth is always the same.

What is the opposite of truth?

The opposite of truth is delusion.

Delusion - this is knowledge that does not correspond to the subject of knowledge, but is accepted as truth. The scientist believes that his knowledge of the subject is true, although he is mistaken.

Remember: lie- Not is the opposite of truth.

Lie is a category of morality. It is characterized by the fact that the truth is hidden for some purpose, although it is known. W delusion same is not a lie, but a sincere belief that knowledge is true (for example, communism is a delusion, such a society cannot exist in the life of mankind, but whole generations of Soviet people sincerely believed in it).

Objective and subjective truth

objective truth - this is the content of human knowledge that exists in reality and does not depend on a person, on his level of knowledge. This is the whole world that exists around.

For example, much in the world, in the Universe exists in reality, although humanity has not yet known this, perhaps it will never know, but all this exists, an objective truth.

subjective truth - this is the knowledge received by mankind as a result of its cognitive activity, this is all that in reality that has passed through the consciousness of a person, understood by him.

Remember:objective truth is not always subjective, and subjective truth is always objective.

Truth Criteria

Criteria- This is a word of foreign origin, translated from Greek kriterion - a measure for evaluation. Thus, the criteria of truth are the grounds that will make it possible to verify the truth, accuracy of knowledge, in accordance with their subject of knowledge.

Truth Criteria

sensory experience is the simplest and most reliable criterion of truth. How to determine that an apple is tasty - try it; how to understand that music is beautiful - listen to it; how to make sure that the color of the leaves is green - look at them.
Theoretical information about the subject of knowledge, that is, theory . Many objects are not amenable to sensory perception. We will never be able to see, for example, the Big Bang, which resulted in the formation of the Universe. In this case, theoretical study, logical conclusions will help to recognize the truth.

Theoretical criteria of truth:

Compliance with logical laws
Correspondence of truth with those laws that were discovered by people earlier
Simplicity of formulation, economy of expression

Practice. This criterion is also very effective, since the truth of knowledge is proved by practical means. .(There will be a separate article about the practice, follow the publications)

Thus, the main goal of any knowledge is to establish the truth. This is what scientists are dedicated to, this is what each of us is trying to achieve in life: know the truth whatever she touches.

In many ways, the problem of the reliability of our knowledge about the world is determined by the answer to the fundamental question of the theory of knowledge: "What is truth?"

1. In the history of philosophy, there were different views on the possibility of obtaining reliable knowledge:

Empiricism - all knowledge about the world is justified only by experience (F. Bacon)
Sensationalism - only with the help of sensations can one know the world (D. Hume)
Rationalism - reliable knowledge can only be gleaned from the mind itself (R. Descartes)
Agnosticism - "thing in itself" is unknowable (I. Kant)
Skepticism - it is impossible to obtain reliable knowledge about the world (M. Montaigne)

True there is a process, and not a one-time act of comprehending the object at once in full.

Truth is one, but objective, absolute and relative aspects are distinguished in it, which can also be considered as relatively independent truths.

objective truth- this is the content of knowledge that does not depend either on man or on humanity.

absolute truth- this is an exhaustive reliable knowledge of nature, man and society; knowledge that can never be refuted.

Relative truth- this is incomplete, inaccurate knowledge, corresponding to a certain level of development of society, which determines the ways of obtaining this knowledge; it is knowledge that depends on certain conditions, place and time of its receipt.

The difference between absolute and relative truth (or absolute and relative in objective truth) is in the degree of accuracy and completeness of the reflection of reality. Truth is always concrete, it is always associated with a certain place, time and circumstances.

Not everything in our life can be assessed in terms of truth or error (falsehood). So, we can talk about different assessments of historical events, alternative interpretations of works of art, etc.

2. True- this is knowledge corresponding to its subject, coinciding with it. Other definitions:

compliance of knowledge with reality;
what is confirmed by experience;
some kind of agreement, convention;
property of self-consistency of knowledge;
the usefulness of the acquired knowledge for practice.

Aspects of truth:

3. Truth Criteria- that which certifies the truth and distinguishes it from error.

1. compliance with the laws of logic;

2. compliance with previously discovered laws of science;

3. compliance with fundamental laws;

4. simplicity, economy of the formula;

Absolute and Relative Truth

paradoxical idea;

6. practice.

4. Practice- an integral organic system of active material activity of people, aimed at transforming reality, carried out in a certain socio-cultural context.

Forms practices:

material production (labor, transformation of nature);
social action (revolutions, reforms, wars, etc.);
scientific experiment.

Functions practices:

source of knowledge (practical needs brought to life the existing sciences.);
the basis of knowledge (a person does not just observe or contemplate the world around him, but in the process of his life activity transforms it);
the purpose of cognition (for this reason, a person cognizes the world around him, reveals the laws of its development in order to use the results of cognition in his practical activities);
criterion of truth (until some proposition, expressed in the form of a theory, concept, simple inference, is verified by experience, is not put into practice, it will remain just a hypothesis (assumption)).

Meanwhile, practice is both definite and indefinite, absolute and relative. Absolute in the sense that only developing practice can finally prove any theoretical or other provisions. At the same time, this criterion is relative, since the practice itself develops, improves, and therefore cannot immediately and completely prove certain conclusions obtained in the process of cognition. Therefore, in philosophy, the idea of complementarity is put forward: the leading criterion of truth - practice, which includes material production, accumulated experience, experiment, is supplemented by the requirements of logical consistency and, in many cases, the practical usefulness of certain knowledge.

exhaustive knowledge

Page 1

Absolutely complete, accurate, comprehensive, exhaustive knowledge about any phenomenon is called absolute truth.

It is often asked whether absolute truth can be reached and formulated. Agnostics answer this question in the negative.

The lack of comprehensive knowledge about the control processes to be automated is not always an obstacle to determining the list of main tasks and requirements for automated control systems.

If the program has exhaustive knowledge, it is able to formulate the question (or rather, the statement behind it) as a logical consequence of the current state of the problem, the strategic knowledge contained in the metarules, the knowledge of the subject area and one of the current goals.

A modern scientist must have comprehensive and comprehensive knowledge in the often very narrow field of science he develops, and, on the other hand, the successful development of the chosen direction is unthinkable without a large amount of knowledge in a wide variety of related sciences.

The difference between ABSOLUTE TRUTH and RELATIVE

These experiments do not provide exhaustive knowledge for practice, therefore, it is desirable to continue such experimental work with respect to a much larger number of types of existing regulators and fuel supply equipment.

None of them alone gives an exhaustive knowledge of any subject.

But everything that at least partially or through instruments affects our senses can be studied and understood.

Somewhat later it was shown that the Schrödinger equation gives an exhaustive knowledge of the behavior of the electron. And those data that, in principle, cannot be calculated, also, in principle, cannot be measured experimentally. Let's say as soon as you try to look at an electron, you will push it off the path. But what eludes measurement and calculation simply does not exist in the world.

As applied to sufficiently developed scientific theoretical knowledge, absolute truth is complete, exhaustive knowledge about an object (a complexly organized material system or the world as a whole); relative truth is incomplete knowledge about the same subject.

At the same time, it is impossible, and indeed there is no need, to demand from the manager an exhaustive knowledge of all scientific disciplines, the services of which he has to resort to in managerial activity.

Therefore, scientific truths are relative in the sense that they do not provide complete, exhaustive knowledge about the area of subjects under study and contain such elements that, in the process of development of knowledge, will be changed, refined, deepened, replaced by new ones.

The technology of heat supply and ventilation is developing so rapidly that in our time it is no longer possible to demand from specialist builders and architects an exhaustive knowledge of such a large field of technology in all its varieties. However, the mutual connection between heat supply and ventilation technology, on the one hand, and general construction technology, on the other, not only does not disappear, but, on the contrary, becomes even closer, even more necessary for the correct solution of a complex of issues of factory, urban and collective farm construction. .

The main task of science is to study the phenomenon under changing conditions in which it occurs. Exhaustive knowledge consists precisely in having a clear idea of this or that fact occurring in any conceivable conditions. It is very important to know what changes in the external world are indifferent to the fact of interest to us, and if there is an influence, then to study it quantitatively. It is necessary to find the conditions under which the phenomenon screams about itself, and such circumstances under which the phenomenon is absent.

Each of them, they argue, turns out to be not quite accurate and complete over time, as in the example with the solar system. Therefore, complete, exhaustive knowledge is unattainable. And the more complex this or that phenomenon, the more difficult it is to achieve absolute truth, that is, complete, exhaustive knowledge about it. And yet absolute truth exists; and it must be understood as the limit, the goal towards which human knowledge strives.

In the future, it is necessary to establish why alcohols and other functional derivatives cannot be obtained from paraffinic hydrocarbons, especially from higher ones, by means of intermediate chlorination, a very attractive method. The explanation of this fact, which assumes an exhaustive knowledge of the regularities of the processes of substitution of paraffin hydrocarbons, is connected with the general conclusion that not only chlorination, but also all other reactions of paraffin substitution proceed according to certain identical laws.

With the help of models, any objects can be investigated. But the fundamental incompleteness, fragmentation of the models does not allow one to obtain exhaustive knowledge about the original with their help. Only in combination with other methods of cognition, in combination with a direct study of the original, the modeling method can be fruitful and have significant heuristic value.

Pages: 1 2

Relativity and absoluteness of truth

In my opinion, each person in his judgment about the truth is still purely subjective, and therefore it is necessary to distinguish the concept of general, in other words, absolute truth from the concept of the truth of each specific individual. And in the classical theory, such a distinction is actually absent.

So what is relative truth? Perhaps it can be characterized as knowledge that approximately and incompletely reproduces the objective world. Precisely approximateness and incompleteness are the specific properties of relative truth. If the world is a system of interconnected elements, then we can conclude that any knowledge about the world, abstracting from some of its aspects, will be obviously inaccurate. Why? It seems to me that because a person cannot cognize the world without fixing his attention on some of its sides and without being distracted from others, proximity is intrinsic to the cognitive process itself.

On the other hand, the search for absolute truth is being undertaken within the framework of the knowledge of specific, and even single facts. As examples of eternal truths, sentences that are a statement of fact usually appear, for example: "Napoleon died on May 5, 1821." Or the speed of light in vacuum is 300,000 km/s.

6 Truth and its criteria. Relativity of truth.

However, attempts to apply the concept of absolute truth to more essential provisions of science, such as universal laws, are unsuccessful.

Thus, a kind of dilemma arises: if absolute truth is considered as absolutely complete and accurate knowledge, then it lies outside the limits of real scientific knowledge; if it is considered as a set of eternal truths, then the concept of absolute truth is inapplicable to the most fundamental types of scientific knowledge. This dilemma is the result of a one-sided approach to the problem, expressed in the fact that absolute truth is identified with a kind of knowledge, isolated from relative truth. The meaning of the concept of "absolute truth" is revealed only in the process of development of scientific knowledge. It consists in the fact that during the transition of scientific knowledge from stage to stage, for example, from one theory to another, the old knowledge is not completely discarded, but is included in one form or another in the system of new knowledge. It is this inclusion, continuity, which characterizes truth as a process, that perhaps constitutes the content of the concept of absolute truth.

Thus, many unresolved problems have arisen, each of which is somehow connected with the need to determine the degree of correspondence between human ideas and the real world. From this follows the need to search for the most stringent criterion of truth, that is, a sign by which one could determine the truth of this or that knowledge.

In addition, only after the establishment of the criterion of truth, many categories with which a person has to interact in one way or another become meaningful.

Processuality of knowledge is that cognitive activity is an advance from ignorance to knowledge, from error to truth, from incomplete, imperfect, incomplete knowledge to more complete, perfect knowledge. The purpose of knowledge is the attainment of truth.

What is truth? How are truth and error related? How is truth obtained and what are its criteria?

J. Locke wrote about the meaning of achieving truth: “The search for truth by the mind is a kind of falconry or dog hunting, in which the pursuit of game itself is a significant part of the pleasure. Each step that the mind takes in its movement towards knowledge is a discovery, which is not only new, but also the best, for the time being, at least."

Aristotle gave the classic definition truth - this is the correspondence of thought and object, knowledge and reality. Truth is knowledge that corresponds to reality. It should be noted that in nature itself there are neither truths nor errors. They are characteristics of human cognition .

Kinds of truth:

1. Absolute truth -

This is knowledge, the content of which is not refuted by the subsequent development of science, but is only enriched and concretized (for example, the teaching of Democritus about atoms;

This is knowledge, the content of which remains invariant (Pushkin was born in 1799);

This absolutely complete and exhaustive knowledge of the subject . In this understanding, absolute truth is not achievable, because all the connections of the subject cannot be explored.

2. Objective truth- this is knowledge about an object, the content of which is the properties and connections of an objectively (regardless of a person) existing object. Such knowledge does not bear the imprint of the personality of the researcher.

objective truth - this is the content of knowledge that does not depend on a person, this is an adequate reflection by the subject of the surrounding world.

3. Relative truth- this is incomplete, limited, true only in certain conditions, knowledge that humanity possesses at a given stage of its development. Relative truth contains elements of delusions associated with concrete historical conditions of knowledge.

4. Concrete truth- this is knowledge, the content of which is true only under certain conditions. For example, "water boils at 100 degrees" is true only under conditions of normal atmospheric pressure.

The process of cognition can be represented as a movement towards absolute truth as a goal through the accumulation of the content of objective truth by clarifying and improving relative and specific truths.

The opposite of truth, but under certain conditions passing into it and emerging from it, is error.

Delusion - an unintentional discrepancy between our understanding of an object (expressed in the corresponding judgments or concepts) and this object itself.

Sources of delusion can be:

- imperfection of the cognitive abilities of the individual;

- prejudices, addictions, subjective moods of the individual;

- poor knowledge of the subject of knowledge, reckless generalizations and conclusions.

Misconceptions must be distinguished from:

— mistakes (the result of an incorrect theoretical or practical action, as well as the interpretation of this phenomenon);

— lies (deliberate, deliberate distortion of reality, deliberate dissemination of deliberately incorrect ideas).

The notion that science operates only with truths is not true. Delusion is an organic part of the truth and stimulates the process of cognition as a whole. On the one hand, delusions lead away from the truth, so a scientist, as a rule, does not deliberately put forward false assumptions. But on the other hand, delusions often contribute to the creation of problem situations, stimulating the development of science.

The experience of the history of science allows us to draw an important conclusion: all scientists should be equal in their search for truth; not a single scientist, not a single scientific school has the right to claim a monopoly in obtaining true knowledge.

The separation of truth from error is impossible without resolving the question of what is criterion of truth .

From the history of attempts to identify the criteria for the truth of knowledge:

· Rationalists (R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, G. Leibniz) - the criterion of truth is thinking itself when it clearly and distinctly thinks of the object; the original truths are self-evident and comprehended by intellectual intuition.

· Russian philosopher V.S. Soloviev — “the measure of truth is transferred from the external world to the cognizing subject himself, the basis of truth is not the nature of things and phenomena, but the human mind” in the case of conscientious work of thinking.

· E. Cassirer - the criterion of truth is the internal consistency of thinking itself.

· Conventionalism (A. Poincare, K. Aidukevich, R. Carnap) - scientists accept scientific theories (conclude an agreement, convention) for reasons of convenience, simplicity, etc. The criterion of truth is the formal-logical consistency of the judgments of science with these conventions.

· Neopositivists (XX century) - the truth of scientific statements is established as a result of their empirical verification, this is the so-called. verification principle. (Verifiability (verification) from Latin verus - true, and facio - I do). However, we note that often experimental activity cannot give a final answer about the truth of knowledge. This happens when the process is studied in the experiment "in its pure form", i.e. in complete isolation from other influencing factors. The experimental verification of social and humanitarian knowledge is significantly limited.

Pragmatism (W. James) - the truth of knowledge is manifested in their ability to be useful to achieve a particular goal; truth is useful. (The thesis “everything that is useful is true” is debatable, since lies can also bring benefits).

Most common criterion of truth knowledge is practice , understood as the socio-historical activity of people. If the use of knowledge in the practical activities of people gives the expected results, then our knowledge correctly reflects reality. Practice as a criterion of truth is considered not as a single experience, not as a one-time act of verification, but social practice in its historical development.

However, this criterion is not universal, for example, it does not work in those branches of knowledge that are far from reality (mathematics, non-classical physics). Then other criteria of truth are proposed:

· Formal-logical criterion. It is applicable to axiomatic-deductive theories, it implies compliance with the requirements of internal consistency (this is the main requirement), completeness and interdependence of axioms.

When it is not possible to rely on practice, the logical sequence of thought, its strict adherence to the laws and rules of formal logic, is revealed. Identification of logical contradictions in reasoning or in the structure of the concept becomes an indicator of error or delusion.

· The principle of simplicity , sometimes called "Occam's razor" - do not multiply the number of entities unnecessarily. The main requirement of this principle is that in order to explain the objects under study, it is necessary to introduce the minimum number of initial postulates (accepted without proving the provisions).

· Axiological criterion , i.e.

Absolute and Relative Truth

correspondence of knowledge to general worldview, socio-political, moral principles. Especially applicable in the social sciences.

But the most important criterion of truth is still practice, experience. Practice underlies the logical, axiological and all other criteria of truth. Whatever methods of establishing the truth of knowledge may exist in science, all of them ultimately (through a number of intermediate links) turn out to be connected with practice.

6. Characteristics of the cognitive abilities of various social groups.

The formation of full-fledged cognitive abilities in children of primary and school age has been fairly well studied by now. The study of the intellectual level of adults faces serious difficulties. Here, of course, the presence of certain age characteristics cannot be denied, but it is quite difficult to single out such age groups. Researchers today have established that certain age groups have common features and relatively stable signs of their intellectual activity. These characteristics are influenced not only by biological age, but also by other factors: family, place of residence, education, ethnic characteristics, and much more. Therefore, people of the same age can belong to different intellectual groups depending on their sociocultural environment.

When measuring the formed intelligence using the so-called "D. Wexler's battery of tests" (tests for awareness, logic, memory, operating with symbols, understanding communication, etc.), the best results were given by the age group from 15 to 25 years, and according to other data - from 25 to 29 years old.

It is quite difficult to achieve high accuracy in measuring intelligence. Summarizing the data of various measurements, we can say that the growth of intellectual abilities occurs approximately up to 20-25 years. Then comes a slight intellectual decline, which becomes more noticeable after 40-45 years and reaches its maximum after 60-65 years (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Relationship between intelligence and age

However, such testing does not give an objective picture, because. one cannot study the young mind, the mature mind, and the old mind with the same tests.

In a young person, the mind serves, first of all, to assimilate the greatest amount of information, to master new ways of activity for him. The mind of a more mature person is focused not so much on the increment of knowledge, but on solving complex problems based on existing knowledge, experience and their own style of thinking and acting. These qualities of the mind are often called wisdom. Of course, over the years, individual functions of the intellect inevitably weaken and even get lost. In elderly and especially senile people, the objectivity of assessments gradually decreases, inertia of judgments grows, they often stray into extreme, black-and-white tones on controversial issues of life practice.

Studies show that the natural decline in intellectual activity is restrained by personal talent, education, and social position. People with a higher educational level and those in leadership positions tend to retire later than their peers. In addition, they have more opportunities to remain intellectually active after retirement, working as advisers or consultants.

Quite naturally, there are many intellectual centenarians among scientists and other specialists in mental, creative work. For older scientists and engineers, the vocabulary and general erudition hardly change with age, for middle managers the non-verbal functions of communication remain at a high level, for accountants - the speed of arithmetic operations.

In addition to the age characteristics of intelligence, we can also talk about gender and ethnicity.

The question of who is smarter - men or women, is as old as the world. Experimental and test studies carried out over the past two decades have confirmed the fundamental equality of intellects in people of different sexes. When performing tasks for different mental functions (the ability to generate ideas, originality, originality), no special differences were found between male and female intellects. Many well-known psychologists independently came to similar conclusions. However, a certain superiority of women in the resources of verbal memory and the lexical stock of live speech was found. Men are superior to women in visual-spatial orientation.

Thus, although there are intellectual differences between the sexes, they are incomparably small in relation to individual differences within each sex.

The fundamental equality of intellects does not at all mean their sameness, complete identity of cognitive processes in men and women. IQ tests consistently reveal some differences between boys and girls, boys and girls, men and women. Women, on average, surpass men in verbal abilities, but are inferior to them in mathematical abilities and the ability to navigate in space. Girls usually learn to speak, read and write earlier than boys.

The noted differences should not be absolutized. Many men speak better than women, and some women demonstrate better mathematical abilities than the vast majority of men.

An interesting fact is that men in most methods receive the highest and lowest possible scores. In women, the spread of individual assessments of mental giftedness is much narrower. In other words, among men there are much more geniuses in science, art and other fields, but there are also much more feeble-minded men than women.

Another interesting question that arises before the researcher of intelligence is ethnic characteristics. As a rule, ethnic features of intellectual activity and intellectual development are formed against the background of the psychological make-up of the nation.

Hans Eysenck, based on research conducted in the United States, notes that Jews, Japanese and Chinese are superior to representatives of all other nations in all indicators of tests for IQ (intelligence quotient). This is also evidenced by the presentation of the Nobel Prize. The publication American Scientists, which lists America's foremost scientists, shows that Jews outnumber non-Jews by about 300% in this area. The Chinese are just as successful in physics and biology. One of the few attempts at typology of national minds known today belongs to the French theorist of science at the beginning of the 20th century. Pierre Duhem. Duhem distinguished between minds that are broad, but not deep enough, and minds that are subtle, penetrating, although comparatively narrow in their scope.

People of a broad mind, in his opinion, are found among all nations, but there is a nation for which such intelligence is especially characteristic. This is the English. In science and, especially in practice, such a “British” type of mind easily operates with complex groupings of individual objects, but it is much more difficult to assimilate purely abstract concepts and formulate general features. In the history of philosophy, an example of this type of mind, from the point of view of Duhem, is F. Bacon.

The French type, according to Duhem, is especially subtle, loves abstractions, generalizations. Although it is too narrow. An example of the French type of mind is R. Descartes. Duhem cited supporting examples not only from the history of philosophy, but also from other sciences.

Whenever attempting to single out a particular national model of thought, one should remember the relativity of such differentiation. The national mind is not a stable pattern, like the color of the skin or the shape of the eyes, it reflects many features of the socio-cultural life of the people.

⇐ Previous34353637383940414243Next ⇒

Publication date: 2014-10-25; Read: 31934 | Page copyright infringement

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 year. (0.004 s) ...

What is truth

There are several definitions of truth. Here are some of them.

Truth is knowledge that corresponds to the subject of knowledge.
Truth is a truthful, objective reflection in the mind of a person of reality.

Absolute and Relative Truth

absolute truth - this is a complete, exhaustive knowledge of a person about something. This knowledge will not be refuted or supplemented with the development of science.

Examples: man is mortal, twice two is four.

Difference between absolute and relative truth lies in how fully this or that phenomenon or object is studied.

Remember: absolute truth has always been relative at first. Relative truth can become absolute with the development of science.

Are there two truths?

No, there are no two truths . There may be several points of view on the subject being studied, but the truth is always the same.

What is the opposite of truth?

The opposite of truth is delusion.

Remember: lie- Not is the opposite of truth.

Objective and subjective truth

objective truth - this is the content of human knowledge that exists in reality and does not depend on a person, on his level of knowledge. This is the whole world that exists around.

For example, much in the world, in the Universe exists in reality, although humanity has not yet known this, perhaps it will never know, but all this exists, an objective truth.

Remember: objective truth is not always subjective, and subjective truth is always objective.

Truth Criteria

Truth Criteria

sensory experience is the simplest and most reliable criterion of truth. How to determine that an apple is tasty - try it; how to understand that music is beautiful - listen to it; how to make sure that the color of the leaves is green - look at them.
Theoretical information about the subject of knowledge, that is, theory . Many objects are not amenable to sensory perception. We will never be able to see, for example, the Big Bang, which resulted in the formation of the Universe. In this case, theoretical study, logical conclusions will help to recognize the truth.

Theoretical criteria of truth:

Compliance with logical laws
Correspondence of truth with those laws that were discovered by people earlier
Simplicity of formulation, economy of expression

Practice. This criterion is also very effective, since the truth of knowledge is proved by practical means. .(There will be a separate article about the practice, follow the publications)

Absolute and Relative Truth- philosophical concepts that reflect the historical process of cognition of objective reality. In contrast to metaphysics, which proceeds from the premise of the immutability of human knowledge and accepts every truth as a once and for all given, ready-made result of cognition, dialectical materialism considers cognition as a historical protest of movement from ignorance to the banner, from knowledge of individual phenomena, individual aspects of reality to a deeper and complete ZESVIA, to the discovery of ever new new laws of development.
The process of cognition of the world and its laws is just as endless as the development of nature and society is endless. Our knowledge at each given stage in the development of science is conditioned by the historically achieved level of knowledge, the level of development of technology, industry, etc. As knowledge and practice continue to develop, human ideas about nature deepen, refine, and improve.

Because of this, the truths known by science at a particular historical stage cannot be considered final, complete. They are necessarily relative truths, i.e., truths that need "further development, further verification and refinement. Thus, the atom was considered indivisible until the beginning of the 20th century, when it was proved that it, in turn, consists of electrons and runs The electronic theory of the structure of matter represents a deepening and expansion of our knowledge of matter.Modern ideas about the atom differ significantly in their depth from those that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Our knowledge about (see) has especially deepened. But even what science now knows about the structure of matter is not the last and final truth: “... dialectical materialism insists on the temporary, relative, approximate nature of all these milestones in the knowledge of nature by the progressive science of man. The electron is just as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite ... ".

Truths are also relative in the sense that they are filled with specific historical content, and therefore a change in historical conditions inevitably leads to changes in truth. What is true under certain historical conditions ceases to be true under other conditions. Thus, for example, the thesis of Marx and Engels about the impossibility of the victory of socialism in one country was true in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism. Under the conditions of imperialism, this proposition ceased to be correct. Lenin created a new theory of socialist revolution, a theory about the possibility of building socialism in one or several countries and the impossibility of its simultaneous victory in all countries.

Emphasizing the relative character of scientific truths, dialectical materialism at the same time considers that each relative truth means a step in the cognition of absolute truth, that each step of scientific cognition contains elements of absolute, i.e., complete, truth, which cannot be refuted in the future. There is no insurmountable line between relative and absolute truth. The totality of relative truths in their development gives the absolute truth. Dialectical materialism recognizes the relativity of all our knowledge, not in the sense of denying truth, but only in the sense that we cannot at any given moment know it to the end, exhaust it all. This position of dialectical materialism on the nature of relative truths is of fundamental importance. The development of sciences leads to the fact that more and more new concepts and ideas about the external world constantly arise, which replace some old, obsolete concepts and ideas.

Idealists use this inevitable and natural moment in the process of cognition to prove the impossibility of the existence of objective truth, to push through the idealistic fabrication that the external material world does not exist, that the world is only a complex of sensations. Since truths are relative, say the idealists, it means that they are nothing but subjective ideas and arbitrary constructions of man; this means that behind the sensations of a person there is nothing, no objective world, or we cannot know anything about it. This charlatan device of the idealists is widely used in modern bourgeois philosophy with the aim of replacing science with religion, fideism. Dialectical materialism exposes the tricks of the idealists. The fact that this truth cannot be considered final, complete, does not indicate that it does not reflect the objective world, is not objective truth, but that this process of reflection is complex, depends on the historically existing level of development of science, that the absolute truth cannot be known all at once.

Great merit in elaborating this question belongs to Lenin, who exposed the attempts of the Machists to reduce the recognition of relative truth to the denial of the external world and objective truth, to the denial of absolute truth. “The contours of the picture (i.e., the picture of nature described by science. - Ed.) Are historically conventional, but what is certain is that this picture depicts an objectively existing model. It is historically conditional when and under what conditions we advanced in our knowledge of the essence of things to the discovery of alizarin in coal tar or to the discovery of electrons in the atom, but it is certain that each such discovery is a step forward of "unconditionally objective knowledge." In a word, any ideology is historically conditional, but what is certain is that any scientific ideology (unlike, for example, religious) corresponds to objective truth, absolute nature.

Therefore, the recognition of absolute truth is the recognition of the existence of an external objective world, the recognition that our knowledge reflects objective truth. Marxism teaches that to recognize objective truth, that is, truth independent of man and mankind, means, in one way or another, to recognize absolute truth. The only thing is that this absolute truth is known in parts, in the course of the progressive development of human knowledge. “Human thinking, by its very nature, is able to give and gives us absolute truth, which is made up of the sum of relative truths. Each stage in the development of science adds new grains to this sum of absolute truth, but the limits of the truth of each scientific position are relative, being sometimes expanded, and narrowed by further growth of knowledge.

Absolute and Relative Truth

There are different forms of truth. They are subdivided according to the nature of the reflected (cognizable) object, according to the types of objective reality, according to the degree of completeness of mastering the object, etc. Let us first turn to the nature of the reflected object. The whole reality surrounding a person, in the first approximation, turns out to be consisting of matter and spirit, forming a single system. Both the first and second spheres of reality become the object of human reflection and information about them is embodied in truths.

The flow of information coming from the material systems of micro-, macro- and mega-worlds forms what can be designated as objective truth (it is then differentiated into subject-physical, subject-biological and other types of truth). The concept of "spirit", correlated from the perspective of the main issue of the worldview with the concept of "nature" or "world", in turn breaks down into existential reality and cognitive reality (in the sense: rationalistic-cognitive).

Existential reality includes the spiritual and vital values of people, such as the ideals of goodness, justice, beauty, feelings of love, friendship, etc., as well as the spiritual world of individuals. The question of whether my idea of goodness (how it developed in such and such a community), my understanding of the spiritual world of such and such a person is true or not is quite natural. If on this path we achieve a true idea, then we can assume that we are dealing with existential truth. The object of development by an individual can also be certain concepts, including religious and natural sciences. One can raise the question of the conformity of an individual's beliefs to one or another set of religious dogmas, or, for example, of the correctness of our understanding of the theory of relativity or the modern synthetic theory of evolution; both there and here the concept of "truth" is used, which leads to the recognition of the existence of conceptual truth. The situation is similar with the ideas of one or another subject about methods, means of cognition, for example, with ideas about a systematic approach, about a modeling method, etc.

Before us is another form of truth - operational. In addition to the selected ones, there may be forms of truth due to the specifics of the types of human cognitive activity. On this basis, there are forms of truth: scientific, everyday (everyday), moral, etc. Let us give the following example, illustrating the difference between ordinary truth and scientific truth. The sentence "Snow is white" can qualify as true. This truth belongs to the realm of ordinary knowledge. Turning to scientific knowledge, we first of all clarify this proposal. The scientific correlate of the truth of ordinary knowledge "Snow is white" will be the sentence "The whiteness of snow is the effect of incoherent light reflected by snow on visual receptors." This proposal is no longer a simple statement of observations, but a consequence of scientific theories - the physical theory of light and the biophysical theory of visual perception. Ordinary truth contains a statement of phenomena and correlations between them. The criteria of scientificity are applicable to scientific truth. All signs (or criteria) of scientific truth are interconnected. Only in a system, in their unity, are they able to reveal scientific truth, to delimit it from the truth of everyday knowledge or from the "truths" of religious or authoritarian knowledge. Practically everyday knowledge is substantiated from everyday experience, from some inductively established recipe rules that do not necessarily have evidentiary force, do not have strict coercion.

The discursiveness of scientific knowledge is based on a forced sequence of concepts and judgments, given by the logical structure of knowledge (causal structure), forms a feeling of subjective conviction in the possession of truth. Therefore, acts of scientific knowledge are accompanied by the confidence of the subject in the reliability of its content. That is why knowledge is understood as a form of subjective right to truth. Under the conditions of science, this right turns into the duty of the subject to recognize logically substantiated, discursively demonstrative, organized, "systematically connected" truth. Within science, there are modifications of scientific truth (according to the areas of scientific knowledge: mathematics, physics, biology, etc.). Truth as an epistemological category should be distinguished from logical truth (sometimes qualified as logical correctness).

Logical truth (in formal logic) is the truth of a sentence (judgment, statement), due to its formal logical structure and the laws of logic adopted during its consideration (in contrast to the so-called factual truth, the establishment of which also requires an analysis of the content of the sentence). objective truth in criminal proceedings, in historical science, in other humanities and social sciences.Considering, for example, historical truth, A. I. Rakitov came to the conclusion that in historical knowledge "a completely peculiar cognitive situation arises: historical truths are a reflection of the real, past socially significant activities of people, i.e. historical practice, but they themselves are not included, are not verified and are not modified in the system of practical activity of the researcher (historian)" (the above provision should not be regarded as violating the idea of the criterial signs of scientific truth.

In this context, the term "verifiability" is used in the sense strictly designated by the author; but "verifiability" also includes an appeal to observation, the possibility of repeated observation, which always takes place in historical knowledge). In humanitarian knowledge, the depth of understanding, which is correlated not only with reason, but also with an emotional, value attitude person to the world. This bipolarity of truth is most clearly expressed in art, in the concept of "artistic truth." As V. I. Svintsov notes, it is more correct to consider artistic truth as one of the forms of truth that is constantly used (along with other forms) in cognition and intellectual communication. An analysis of a number of works of art shows that there is a "truth basis" of artistic truth in these works. "It is quite possible that it is, as it were, moved from the surface to the deeper layers. Although it is not always easy to establish a connection between "depth" and "surface", it is clear that it must exist ...

In reality, the truth (falsehood) in works containing such constructions can be "hidden" in the plot-plot layer, the layer of characters, and finally in the layer of coded ideas.

The artist is able to discover and demonstrate the truth in an artistic form. An important place in the theory of knowledge is occupied by the forms of truth: relative and absolute. The question of the relationship between absolute and relative truth could fully become a worldview issue only at a certain stage in the development of human culture, when it was discovered that people are dealing with cognitively inexhaustible, complexly organized objects, when the inconsistency of the claims of any theories for the final (absolute) comprehension of these objects was revealed.

Absolute truth is currently understood as such kind of knowledge that is identical to its subject and therefore cannot be refuted with the further development of knowledge.

There is such a truth:

a) the result of the knowledge of certain aspects of the objects under study (statement of facts);
b) final knowledge of certain aspects of reality;
c) the content of relative truth, which is preserved in the process of further cognition;
d) complete, actually never completely unattainable knowledge about the world and (we will add) about complexly organized systems.

Apparently, until the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century. in natural science, and in philosophy, the idea of truth as absolute in the meanings marked by points a, b and c dominated. When something is stated that exists or actually existed (for example, in 1688 red blood cells-erythrocytes were discovered, and in 1690 the polarization of light was observed), not only the years of discoveries of these structures or phenomena are "absolute", but also assertions that these phenomena actually occur. Such a statement fits the general definition of the concept of "absolute truth". And here we do not find "relative" truth that differs from "absolute" (except when changing the reference system and reflection on the theories themselves that explain these phenomena; but this requires a certain change in the scientific theories themselves and the transition of some theories to others). When a strict philosophical definition is given to the concepts of "movement", "jump", etc., such knowledge can also be considered absolute truth in the sense that coincides with relative truth (and in this respect, the use of the concept "relative truth" is not necessary, as it becomes superfluous and the problem of correlation between absolute and relative truths). Such absolute truth is not opposed by any relative truth, unless we turn to the formation of the corresponding ideas in the history of natural science and in the history of philosophy. There will be no problem of correlation between absolute and relative truths even when dealing with sensations or in general non-verbal forms of human reflection of reality. But when this problem is removed in our time for the same reasons that it did not exist in the 17th or 18th centuries, then this is already an anachronism. As applied to sufficiently developed scientific theoretical knowledge, absolute truth is complete, exhaustive knowledge about an object (a complexly organized material system or the world as a whole); relative truth is incomplete knowledge about the same subject.

An example of this kind of relative truths is the theory of classical mechanics and the theory of relativity. Classical mechanics as an isomorphic reflection of a certain sphere of reality, notes D.P. Gorsky, was considered a true theory without any restrictions, i.e. true in some absolute sense, since it was used to describe and predict real processes of mechanical motion. With the advent of the theory of relativity, it was found that it could no longer be considered true without limitations. The isomorphism of the theory as an image of mechanical motion ceased to be complete over time; in the subject area, relationships were revealed between the corresponding characteristics of mechanical motion (at high speeds), which were not fulfilled in classical mechanics. Classical (with restrictions introduced into it) and relativistic mechanics, already considered as corresponding isomorphic mappings, are interconnected as less complete truth and more complete truth. Absolute isomorphism between a mental representation and a certain sphere of reality, as it exists independently of us, emphasizes D. P. Gorsky, is unattainable at any level of knowledge.

Such an idea of absolute, and even of relative truth, connected with entering the process of development of scientific knowledge, the development of scientific theories, leads us to the true dialectic of absolute and relative truth. Absolute truth (in aspect d) is made up of relative truths. If we recognize absolute truth in the diagram as an infinite area to the right of the "zx" vertical and above the "zу" horizontal, then steps 1, 2, 3 ... will be relative truths. At the same time, these same relative truths turn out to be parts of absolute truth, and therefore, simultaneously (and in the same respect) absolute truths. It is no longer absolute truth (d), but absolute truth (c). Relative truth is absolute in its third aspect, and not just leading to absolute truth as an exhaustive knowledge of the object, but as an integral part of it, invariant in its content as part of an ideally complete absolute truth. Each relative truth is at the same time absolute (in the sense that it contains a part of the absolute - r). The unity of absolute truth (in the third and fourth aspects) and relative truth is determined by their content; they are united because both absolute and relative truths are objective truths.

When we consider the movement of the atomistic concept from antiquity to the 17th-18th centuries, and then to the beginning of the 20th century, in this process, behind all the deviations, there is a core line associated with the growth, multiplication of objective truth in the sense of an increase in the volume of information of a true nature. (True, one has to note that the above diagram, which quite clearly shows the formation of absolute truth from relative ones, needs some corrections: relative truth 2 does not exclude relative truth, as in the diagram, but absorbs it into itself, transforming it in a certain way) . So what was true in the atomistic conception of Democritus is also included in the truth content of the modern atomistic conception.

Does relative truth contain any moments of error? There is a point of view in the philosophical literature according to which relative truth consists of objective truth plus error. We have already seen above, when we began to consider the question of objective truth and gave an example with the atomistic concept of Democritus, that the problem of evaluating a particular theory in terms of "truth - error" is not so simple. It must be admitted that any truth, even if it is relative, is always objective in its content; and being objective, relative truth is non-historical (in the sense we have touched upon) and non-class. If delusion is included in the composition of relative truth, then this will be the fly in the ointment that will spoil the whole barrel of honey. As a result, truth ceases to be truth. Relative truth excludes any moments of error or falsehood. Truth at all times remains truth, adequately reflecting real phenomena; relative truth is objective truth, excluding error and falsehood.

The historical development of scientific theories aimed at reproducing the essence of one and the same object is subject to the correspondence principle (this principle was formulated by the physicist N. Bohr in 1913). According to the correspondence principle, the replacement of one natural science theory with another reveals not only a difference, but also a connection, a continuity between them, which can be expressed with mathematical precision.

The new theory, coming to replace the old one, not only denies the latter, but retains it in a certain form. Thanks to this, a reverse transition from the subsequent theory to the previous one is possible, their coincidence in a certain limiting region, where the differences between them turn out to be insignificant. For example, the laws of quantum mechanics transform into the laws of classical mechanics under conditions when the magnitude of the quantum of action can be neglected. (In the literature, the normative and descriptive nature of this principle is expressed in the requirement that each subsequent theory does not logically contradict the previously accepted and justified in practice; the new theory should include the former one as a limiting case, i.e. the laws and formulas of the former theory in certain extreme conditions should automatically follow from the formula of the new theory). So, the truth is objective in content, but in form it is relative (relative-absolute). The objectivity of truth is the basis of the continuity of truths. Truth is a process. The property of objective truth to be a process manifests itself in two ways: firstly, as a process of change in the direction of an increasingly complete reflection of the object and, secondly, as a process of overcoming delusion in the structure of concepts and theories. The movement from a less complete truth to a more complete one (ie the process of its development), like any movement, development, has moments of stability and moments of variability. In unity controlled by objectivity, they ensure the growth of the truth content of knowledge. When this unity is violated, the growth of truth slows down or stops altogether. With the hypertrophy of the moment of stability (absoluteness), dogmatism, fetishism, and a cult attitude towards authority are formed. Such a situation existed, for example, in our philosophy in the period from the late 1920s to the mid-1950s. The absolutization of the relativity of knowledge in the sense of replacing some concepts by others can give rise to wasted skepticism and, in the end, agnosticism. Relativism can be a worldview setting. Relativism causes that mood of confusion and pessimism in the field of cognition, which we saw above in H.A. Lorentz and which, of course, had an inhibitory effect on the development of his scientific research. Gnoseological relativism is outwardly opposed to dogmatism. However, they are united in the gap between the stable and changeable, as well as the absolutely relative in truth; they complement each other. Dialectics opposes to dogmatism and relativism such an interpretation of truth, in which absoluteness and relativity, stability and variability are linked together. The development of scientific knowledge is its enrichment, concretization. Science is characterized by a systematic increase in the truth potential.

Consideration of the question of the forms of truth leads closely to the question of the various conceptions of truth, their relationship with each other, and also attempts to find out whether certain forms of truth are hidden behind them? If such are found, then, apparently, the former straightforwardly critical approach to them (as to "unscientific") should be discarded. These concepts must be recognized as specific strategies for the investigation of truth; try to synthesize them.

In recent years, this idea has been clearly formulated by L. A. Mikeshina. Having in mind different concepts, she notes that these concepts should be considered in interaction, since they are complementary in nature, in fact, not denying each other, but expressing the epistemological, semantic, epistemological and sociocultural aspects of true knowledge. And although, in her opinion, each of them is worthy of constructive criticism, this does not mean ignoring the positive results of these theories. L. A. Mikeshina believes that knowledge should correlate with other knowledge, since it is systemic and interconnected, and in the system of propositions sentences of object and metalanguage (according to Tarsky) can be correlated.

The pragmatic approach, in turn, if it is not simplified and vulgarized, fixes the role of social significance, recognized by society, the communicativeness of truth. These approaches, as long as they do not claim to be unique and universal, represent in the aggregate, emphasizes L. A. Mikeshina, a fairly rich toolkit for epistemological and logical-methodological analysis of the truth of knowledge as a system of propositions. Accordingly, each of the approaches offers its own criteria of truth, which, for all their unequal value, should, apparently, be considered in unity and interaction, that is, in a combination of empirical, subject-practical and non-empirical (logical, methodological, sociocultural, and other criteria )

Throughout their existence, people have been trying to answer many questions about the structure and organization of our world. Scientists are constantly making new discoveries and are getting closer to the truth every day, unraveling the mysteries of the structure of the Universe. What is absolute and relative truth? How do they differ? Will people ever achieve absolute truth in the theory of knowledge?

The concept and criteria of truth

In various fields of science, scientists give many definitions of truth. So, in philosophy, this concept is interpreted as the correspondence of the image of an object formed by human consciousness to its real existence, regardless of our thinking.

In logic, truth is understood as judgments and conclusions that are sufficiently complete and correct. They should be free of contradictions and inconsistencies.

In the exact sciences, the essence of truth is interpreted as the goal of scientific knowledge, as well as the coincidence of existing knowledge with real ones. It is of great value, allows you to solve practical and theoretical problems, justify and confirm the conclusions.

The problem of what is considered true and what is not, arose as long ago as this concept itself. The main criteria of truth are the ability to confirm the theory in a practical way. It can be logical proof, experience or experiment. This criterion, of course, cannot be a 100% guarantee of the truth of the theory, since practice is tied to a specific historical period and is improved and transformed over time.

Absolute truth. Examples and features

In philosophy, absolute truth is understood as some kind of knowledge about our world that cannot be refuted or disputed. It is exhaustive and the only correct one. Absolute truth can only be established empirically or with the help of theoretical justifications and evidence. It must necessarily correspond to the world around us.

Very often the concept of absolute truth is confused with eternal truths. Examples of the latter: a dog is an animal, the sky is blue, birds can fly. Eternal truths apply only to any particular fact. For complex systems, as well as for the knowledge of the whole world as a whole, they are not suitable.

Is there absolute truth?

Disputes of scientists about the nature of truth have been going on since the birth of philosophy. There are several opinions in science about whether there are absolute and relative truth.

According to one of them, everything in our world is relative and depends on the perception of reality by each individual. At the same time, absolute truth is never achievable, because it is impossible for mankind to know exactly all the secrets of the universe. First of all, this is due to the limited possibilities of our consciousness, as well as the insufficient development of the level of science and technology.

From the position of other philosophers, on the contrary, everything is absolute. However, this does not apply to the knowledge of the structure of the world as a whole, but to specific facts. For example, the theorems and axioms proven by scientists are considered absolute truth, but they do not provide answers to all questions of mankind.

The majority of philosophers adhere to such a point of view that absolute truth is formed from a multitude of relative ones. An example of such a situation is when, over time, a certain scientific fact is gradually improved and supplemented with new knowledge. At present, it is impossible to achieve absolute truth in the study of our world. However, a moment will probably come when the progress of mankind will reach such a level that all relative knowledge is summed up and forms a complete picture that reveals all the secrets of our Universe.

Relative truth

Due to the fact that a person is limited in the ways and forms of cognition, he cannot always get complete information about things that interest him. The meaning of relative truth is that it is incomplete, approximate, requiring clarification of people's knowledge about a particular object. In the process of evolution, new research methods, as well as more modern instruments for measurements and calculations, become available to man. It is precisely in the accuracy of knowledge that the main difference between relative truth and absolute truth lies.

Relative truth exists in a specific time period. It depends on the place and period in which the knowledge was obtained, historical conditions and other factors that may affect the accuracy of the result. Also, relative truth is determined by the perception of reality by a particular person conducting research.

Relative Truth Examples

As an example of relative truth depending on the location of the subject, one can cite the following fact: a person claims that it is cold outside. For him, this is the truth, it would seem, absolute. But people in another part of the planet are hot at this time. Therefore, when talking about the fact that it is cold outside, only a specific place is meant, which means that this truth is relative.

From the point of view of a person's perception of reality, one can also give an example of the weather. The same air temperature can be tolerated and felt differently by different people. Someone will say that +10 degrees is cold, but for someone it is quite warm weather.

Over time, relative truth is gradually transformed and supplemented. For example, a few centuries ago, tuberculosis was considered an incurable disease, and people who contracted it were doomed. At that time, the mortality of this disease was not in doubt. Now humanity has learned to fight tuberculosis and completely cure the sick. Thus, with the development of science and the change of historical eras, ideas about the absoluteness and relativity of truth in this matter have changed.

The concept of objective truth

For any science, it is important to obtain such data that would reliably reflect reality. Objective truth is understood as knowledge that does not depend on the desire, will and other personal characteristics of a person. They are stated and fixed without the influence of the opinion of the subject of the study on the result.

Objective and absolute truth are not the same thing. These concepts are completely unrelated to each other. Both absolute and relative truth can be objective. Even incomplete, not fully proven knowledge can be objective if it is obtained in compliance with all necessary conditions.

subjective truth

A lot of people believe in various signs and signs. However, support from the majority does not mean the objectivity of knowledge. Human superstitions do not have scientific evidence, which means they are subjective truth. The usefulness and significance of information, practical applicability and other interests of people cannot act as a criterion of objectivity.

Subjective truth is a person's personal opinion about a particular situation, which does not have solid evidence. We have all heard the expression “Everyone has their own truth”. It is precisely this that relates fully to subjective truth.

Lies and delusion as the opposite of truth

Anything that is not true is considered false. Absolute and relative truth are opposite concepts for lies and delusions, meaning the discrepancy between the reality of certain knowledge or beliefs of a person.

The difference between delusion and falsehood lies in the intentionality and awareness of their application. If a person, knowing that he is wrong, proves his point of view to everyone, he is telling a lie. If someone sincerely believes his opinion is correct, but in fact it is not, then he is simply mistaken.

Thus, only in the struggle against falsehood and delusion can absolute truth be achieved. Examples of such situations in history are found everywhere. So, approaching the unraveling of the mystery of the structure of our Universe, scientists swept aside various versions that were considered absolutely true in antiquity, but in fact turned out to be a delusion.

philosophical truth. Its development in dynamics

Modern scientists understand truth as a continuous dynamic process on the way to absolute knowledge. At the same time, at the moment, in a broad sense, truth should be objective and relative. The main problem is the ability to distinguish it from delusion.

Despite a sharp leap in human development over the past century, our methods of cognition still remain quite primitive, preventing people from approaching absolute truth. However, consistently moving towards the goal, timely and completely weeding out delusions, perhaps someday we will be able to find out all the secrets of our Universe.