Has Truth Ended?

Research record

The most popular charge about postmodernism is that these ideologies declared ‘the end of truth’. Language mediates meaning, power institutionalizes knowledge, history is selective writing, images can mask reality—these claims sometimes add up to conclude: “There is no such thing as truth.” But “how do we know truth?” and “does truth exist?”—are two different questions. The path to knowledge can be fallible, historical, linguistic or power-relative; This would not automatically end the knowable world. Similarly, ‘a different person holds a different view’ and ‘the same event can be arbitrarily changed’ are not identical claims. Wars, floods, diseases, elections, geography, deaths, publication of books, dates of documents—all of these may have different interpretations, but events/evidence range. The basic assertion of this chapter is that truth did not end; The old sincere trust in truth-claims was eliminated/weakened. Language, institutions, power and medium mediate access to truth, not destroy the existence of truth. Parallel philosophy separates truth, proof and certainty. the reality-relativity of truth claims; the basis supporting the evidence claim; The psychological/epistemological confidence of the certainty knower. It can be true when we are uncertain; We can be certain when we are wrong. Multi-evidential rationalism says—the evidence can be many, the criterion of evidence is not arbitrary. Depending on the type of claim, direct, record, experiment, statistics, independent evidence, linguistic context, argument, material evidence, expertise or oral history may have different weight.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

The first form of the former is strictly realistic—truth is truth; Discussion of language/entities/perspectives is unnecessarily complicated, since facts are independent. The second presupposition is postmodern relativist—we only reach linguistically/socially constructed perspectives; The ‘object itself’ claim is privileged only. The third antecedent is pragmatic—that working, predicting, solving problems, the same is true enough; Correspondence metaphysics unnecessary. The fourth antecedent is social—truth-institutions historically associated with power/exclusion; That is why the language of ‘objective truth’ is sometimes a tool of domination. The fifth premise is from the Indian comparison—it is fascinating but misleading to call polytheism, bi-truth, illusion, apoh or ‘neti-neti’ the precursors of modern relativism/post-truth.

Uttarapakṣa

Answer to the first premise—facts may be free, but human access is not automatically transparent. Examining language/entities/institutions is part of epistemology, not fact-denial. Answer to the second precedent—External resistance can also be identified from completely mediated knowledge. Wrong map failing travel; Wrong drugs will not give results; The wrong date will collide with an independent record. Answer to the third premise—behavioral success is a powerful signal, but not enough. Placebo effects, propaganda, short-term gain, exploitative systems can also 'work' Answer to the fourth premise—being-conscious objectivity necessary. Check source authority, interest, exclusion; Also have open data, independent retesting, methodological transparency and appeal. The answer to the fifth precedent—the Indian theory should be read in its context. polytheism ≠ relativism; bitruth ≠ post-truth; Maya ≠ simulation; Apoh ≠ arbitrary economics (arbitrary semantics).

Parallel conclusion

The truth did not end; The disingenuous/uncritical validity of truth-claims was challenged. Language, power, institutions, mediums and perspectives mediate access to knowledge; External reality, evidence and independent resistance prevent claims from being arbitrary. Truth, proof, certainty, consensus and point of view are different concepts. The lack of this distinction leads to relativism or fundamentalism. Postmodern skepticism is useful when it examines the conditions, exclusions, power and language of claims; harmful then that gives the conclusion ‘all claims are equal’.

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 6 source passages
2. Central thesis · 5 source passages
3. Major arguments · 15 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 5 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 5 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 8 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 8 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 8 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 6 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 20 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Has Truth Ended?.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-45/