This essay aims at illustrating in what way truth in mathematics, ethics and arts is different. It is widely believed that mathematical truths are objective, universal and agreeable to all in all situations. It is also widely accepted that truth in art is more of subjective i.e. depends on individual feelings and thoughts. Truth in ethics or the truthfulness on ethical postulates is said to be relative; it is true depending on other relative beliefs that an individual ascribes to (Dales, 17). In this essay, the distinguishing features or aspects of truth in mathematics, ethics and art will be considered towards establishing to what extent they differ.
As a starting point, it would be helpful to understand what the word truth per se refers to. Many people are skeptical about the possibility of absolute truths. They argue that what was true yesterday has been disapproved while what we hold as truth today is likely not to be true in the future (Gadamar, 36). To what extent and in what sense this is true is not the question. However, the described disillusionment with pursuit of truth arises out of the elusiveness of or in truth as a concept.
Over time, people have been developing different ways of ascertaining or establishing truth. One such way of establishing truth is consensus. In traditional or primitive societies, truth was established by way of consensus amongst the elders (Osborne, 24). In some cases, truth was based on coherence i.e. if the statement given was coherent or cohered with already established truths, it was accepted as truthful. From consensus and coherence, society developed constructs that were generally accepted for being true (Osborne 61). On further discernment, contradictions in the established coherent systems and social constructs glared thus necessitating need for evidence or correspondence between the said and reality as a way of ascertaining truthfulness. The correspondence or conformance of ideas to reality is the surest check of truthfulness (Gadimar, 78).
However, reality is complex and there are some ideas that can not easily be checked in the reality (things out there now). It is for these reasons that some people have posited higher powers (God) as guarantor of truthfulness). Truth is revealed to mankind and God is the Truth that all should look at incase they seek to distinguish between right and falsehood. Some other people could not find any satisfying measure of truth in the already mentioned ways. Therefore, they posited that true is that which works. If any theory has some truth, if any statement is truthful and if any idea is true, this can only be seen in practice (Brocks, 112). If a theory is applicable or an idea has some tangible applicability towards human welfare, pragmatists would give it a second thought.
From the different ways of testing truth or ascertaining truthfulness, people developed different understanding of truth. For some people, truth is objective, universal and eternal. It is equated to being per se. whatsoever is, is accepted as truthful, beautiful, good and lovely. Those who take truth from this kind of perspective distinguish between ontological truthfulness and logical truthfulness. Ontological truthfulness has to do with the being of things (Lehrer, 47). In this sense, it is true that which is. Truthfulness is self evident in being and does not need any other measure beyond conformance of our mental ideas to reality.
Truth seen on any other level is subjective and relative. It is highly determined or informed by an individual’s upbringing, education, skills and is not necessarily about things as they actually are. This level allows for the consideration of truthfulness ascribed to beings of reason. Beings of reason are those things created by the human mind that do not have existence in the world; things that are a result of thought on thought (Lehrer, 23). Such things may later be actualized as products of human ingenuity and creativity. Their truthfulness can most appropriately be determined by such measures as practical application/ value, coherence or consensus. Social system is created out of logical considerations. The truthfulness of such like constructs is relevant to the extent that paradigm fits and works. Over time with changes in natural environment as well as conception of new more intricate, more rewarding system, the former are rendered useless and irrelevant. The truthfulness of their being the best system will have been relegated as appropriated over time. It follows; therefore, the understanding of truth has to be contextualized. Unless things or issues are taken in context, their truthfulness is missed leading to misunderstanding. If things are understood in context, their truthfulness is appropriated as per the right sense thus averting any form of skepticism.
Taking each and everything in context does not warranty the talking about different kinds of truths. Truth remains truth despite context; only that it is defined more by given postulates in given context than in others (Gadamer, 83). Are truths in mathematics, ethics and art different? One would validly argue that they are and they are not. There are some mathematical postulates that are not universally acceptable while there are some ethical considerations that are more or less universal. There is this ethical consideration, the golden rule. Somehow, it appears that all people, despite of culture or race would agree to the importance to treat others well as the only sure way of assuring own survival in this world. Consider a poem, the probability of one poem being interpreted differently not withstanding, a properly written poem or sculptured work of art would often vividly convey its message without running risk of many different valid subjective interpretations (Gadamer, 95).
Some people argue that art or a piece of art has no truth. While others argue that art is not a work or an Endeavour without direction. Artists are people with purpose and direction who aim at communicating with people. Their passion and creativity is anchored on and incited by truth or desire for truth. An artist draws, writes or develops what he or she believes in i.e. there is a value or truth veiled in the idea that informs an artistic creation. The truth in art is subjective because as a piece, it does not hold any defined truth. Unless the truth the artist intends to portray through the use of it is revealed, its beholder will always form an own understanding of what the art is or means depending on his or her own subjective considerations (Brock, 126). The truth of an art or in an art is not given and is never objective. One piece of art is subject to different interpretations that are all valid. It all depends on ones perceptions; frame of minds and psychosocial schemas that inform our evaluation. Although this is widely accepted, it is not conclusive; there is still possibility that objective appreciation of art can be achieved. Art should be seen more in terms of a discipline that uses a particular style or technique. Truth in art does not have any different meaning from what mathematics considers as truth. However, truth communicated in art has to be deciphered from the creative expressions that often are informed by a given objective style, rhythm or understood symbols.
While there are those who think there is no truth in art, others think truth in art and ethics is of the same kind. Truth in art and ethics are both seen as subjective and relativist against mathematical truths that are objective and universal (Dales, 13). This, also, is a wrong assumption or line of thought. Truth determination in art is very distinct from truth determination or bases in ethics. Ethical truth is more about individual’s beliefs. Beliefs are varied; as many as the number of religions; religious denominations and other non religious belief bodies. It is true that ethics in a big way is about shared norms, generally accepted ways and standards of behavior and general conception of what is good and right in human conduct. However, it should be understood that ethics goes beyond merely what happens as to concern with what should or ought to be happening. In so doing, or towards that goal, ethics as a discipline is concerned with tools, measures and techniques that could ground given values on which human behavior or conduct should be pegged.
Seen in this light, ethics is taken on another perspective that moves it from the realm of pure relativism. Just as there are grains of relativism and subjectivism in mathematics, ethics also strives towards objective, universal and generally acceptable stipulations (Brock, 57). Like arts, the appropriation of an ethics (based on truthfulness of postulates as understood by one) is a very subjective. However, the general ethical considerations or principles are based on given assumed objective truths that ground the ethics.
Mathematical truths are taken for absolute, objective truths. This is because mathematical truths are proved. Mathematical truths are proved by way of formulae that are developed or derived and any sum of problem seeking questions of the particular nature can adequately be answered by use of the given formulas (Dales, 9). These formulas are universal and their derivation can be followed and verified by all who have necessary knowledge or skills. However, problems come in often in considering how the mathematical formulas were originated. Along the line, all mathematical formulas followed to a logical conclusions lead to an irrational assumption that the mathematician can not explain. From such like a point of view one would argue mathematical truths are not in any big way any more objective that say the golden rule as a postulate of given moral systems or ethical theories. It occurs that mathematical truths are accepted by consensus often basically for practical reasons.
From the given consideration, it is clear that truth does not change in meaning across disciplines. However, the approach to truth changes because of the different techniques used in the different disciplines.
Works Cited
Brock, Stuart, and Edwin, David, Mares. Realism and Anti-Realism Central Problems of Philosophy. UK: Acumen, 2007
Dales, Harold G. and Gianluigi, Oliveri. Truth in Mathematics. UK: Oxford University Press, 1998
Gadamer, Hans, Georg, and Joel Weinsheimer, Truth and Method: Continuum Impacts Question What You Thought Before. 2nd Ed. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004
Lehrer, Keith. Metamind. New York: Clarendon Press, 1990
Osborne, Thomas. Aspects of Enlightenment: Social Theory and the Ethics of Truth. New York. NY: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998