Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
From the point of view of common sense, the ideal answer may be as exhaustive as possible, but it is very unlikely that “true” or “not true” is 100%. Our world is full of dualism, the truth is vague and “what will lift one, will crush the other with a stone.” Therefore, it is always important not only the rule, but also the specific situation in which it is applied. Keep your mind open, don't rush to put labels and be categorical,because any cataloging is always a limitation, and then you will see that any answer carries both the grain of truth and the bitterness of lies. The wisdom is to see both. Exceptions can only be questions and answers like 2+2=4. There are no longer two correct answers.
I am writing under the impression of Viktor Rudenko's answer.
In short, that is, because reality exists, but it is almost impossible for a person to find it and express it.
If it's too long, then get ready.
So, we have some mathematical statement, a la 2+2=4, or a triple integral with the answer, it doesn't matter. It is true because it is proved mathematically. But this only works in models and abstractions, and math can be thought of as an extreme case of abstraction.
A less “pure” abstraction is physics . For example, we have two square bodies on a smooth surface, of different masses, one moving towards the other at such and such a speed and blah-blah-blah. Here we calculated the momenta before and after an absolutely elastic collision, for example, because this was required as an answer. On paper, everything is true, the answer seems to be correct. But once we apply this model to reality, it turns out to be “almost” true, hence false, because the words “only true” in your question imply that “almost” doesn't count. This will be considered a lie for obvious and not very good reasons, such as “even a smooth surface has irregularities, therefore there is a certain coefficient of friction between it and the body”, “air resistance must be taken into account”, “when bodies collide, some part of the energy passes into heat and some momentum is lost”, and so on, and so on. If you want to get the “only correct “answer to the question” what will happen to the bodies after the collision” and if you are a fool, then you will take a computer and start inserting more and more new aspects into this model of the collision of two bodies, up to the curvature of the table under the gravity of the bodies and similar functions that, even if
Why “if you're a fool”? Because no matter how powerful your computer is, if the program is as close to reality as possible (it calculates everything up to the quantum level), it will not be able to overtake reality in its calculations.
If you are not a fool (I assume that this is exactly what you are), then you will set up an experiment where all interactions are correctly calculated a priori in the fastest possible way-reality (but even here we have a problem in the form of inaccuracy of our measurements, but this is not something that would be very important).
Conclusion: In the sciences related to reality, the only correct answer can be obtained only in reality. Theoretical ones can approach it, but they will never reach the ” only truth”;.
So what we have: a world that our brain is unable to understand “only correctly”, due to the fact that our perception is a model created by our own mind. And as soon as the world provides us with an answer to a question, we understand it in our own way and redraw it into a model in our brain, simplifying some minor aspects, while sacrificing “only loyalty”. But we are not very afraid of this, we live in an easy lie about the world and, after all, we thrive, we build cunning cars and have few regrets.
We seem to have figured out about the sciences, now we have philosophy and similar classes. Here is an example of a “specifically asked question” taken at random from my head (I doubt its reasonableness due to the reasons set out below): What is love? I won't give you an answer to this question, but I'll tell you in advance. So, reality has such a single correct answer in one way or another, since there is something that we put into the concept of “love” (let's omit the fact that different people put sometimes even opposite things into the same concepts), but it is very unlikely that a person will give this answer. Then there is an explanation, if you agree with this statement, you can skip the paragraph. Let someone start answering this question. He will collect the data that correspond to the concept of “love “in his understanding, generalize somewhere, making the answer more abstract, refine somewhere to bring the answer closer to reality, formulate a” true ” answer that satisfies him, and express it. But then exactly those “small falsehoods” in our human model perception begin to play out. Since everyone has these “little lies” about elementary things different, and they also tend to accumulate depending on the complexity of things and their ” remoteness” from elementary things (“what is love” and 2+2, respectively), the sum of the data that a person collects in his mind for an answer can no longer be true. And then there are also various manipulations with this data, somewhere to cut down on information that a person is not satisfied with, somewhere to clarify the data that he likes (for example, a person is highly moral and he does not like that people tend to fuck, so he will present love as a “pure and sublime feeling”, completely ignoring the bodily component). So it turns out that giving an answer to one person will not work even if he devotes his whole life to studying a certain question (that is, he will eliminate these “small falsehoods”).
So where is the exit? The first obvious conclusion is that to get an answer to a relatively complex question, you need to gather as many people as possible who understand this issue, preferably all existing ones, eliminate all disagreements between them by discussing and experimenting, and reach an agreement about it. And only then the answer may not be fully “only true”, but its microscopic falsity can be ignored, the vast majority of the results of theoretical experiments will not differ from the real ones.
The second conclusion: to live in reality, not theory (what follows will be almost my personal confession, because I made this conclusion in the process of writing the answer and I already regret myself for being such a fool). That is, no matter what theory is developed, reality, even in complex questions, will consistently give the correct answer. I can describe this whole thing in more detail, but the volume will be like all of the above, probably, so if anyone has a desire, write in the comments and I will edit this answer.
Third conclusion: I'm wrong. My God, I've never really studied philosophy, and I've only read Shestov, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer, so what can I provide if I'm essentially ignorant? Now I want to delete this answer to hell, but I'm sorry for the time spent, so I won't.
If you do not agree with me-do not rush to put a minus sign, I still tried for you. I will be glad to discuss it in the comments.