“Contradiction" reminds me of textual hermeneutics.
There is, of course, the message the author intended, like in Moby Dick where we learn about the tragic nature of revenge.
But, as Derrida pointed out (“There is nothing beyond the text"), there may also be unconscious themes that the author didn’t consciously intend, but she accidentally put in the text nonetheless. Moreover, there may be a “trace" of something in the author’s text that may contradict (“contra dicere in Latin," “speak against") the author’s project, such as the way Aristotle may have detected the hint of something in Plato’s texts that threatened to overthrow Platonism. Or, how an author’s moral message may be tainted by hints of bigotry.
And texts can be inherently ambiguous. So there can be a plurality of interpretations of the same text, while some interpretations “speak against" others, with no real ground for deciding between them: eg., Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, or charismatic healer, or Cynic philosopher, or Jewish Messiah, or prophet of social change, or mythical celestial being, or zealot. Each faction of interpreters point out that their model explains the available evidence, and that their model can effectively explain away any supposedly recalcitrant evidence.
Hermeneutics are humbling processes that remind us of human frailty. And that’s a good thing. Untold tragedy has happened in human history because people have acquainted “truth" with “certainty." Certainty, as Nietzsche showed, is a psychological state, not a guarantee of truth. Everyone has had different points of view about things they once were “certain" about, such as Dr. Bart Ehrman’s fundamentalist youth changing into a liberal perspective of the academy.
As Heidegger said, truth is more primordially seen as “aletheia," which is not just “correctness," but more originally (with the alpha privative, “a-letheia") “unconcealed," or “revealed," or “exemplary," like when we speak of someone going out of their way to help us that they are demonstrating what it means to be a “true" friend.
Before there can be truth as “correctness" (the agreement of a proposition with a state of affairs), there must be “a-letheia," “un-hiddenness." For instance, before 1+1=2 is “true" for a child, it must be “revealed" with manipulatives that when you group one thing with another thing, you get two things.
And, as Heidegger said, there is a “giving" to truth (“Es gibt Sein," in German). Anyone who has stayed up all night trying with futility to solve a problem, when suddenly the answer “comes to them," knows this (Eureka! I’ve found it - in Greek). The phenomenological experience of truth is more than just sheer effort, because there must be a revealing and a finding of what is given. Even today people in the Arts still speak of their ‘Muse,’ and if the muse isn’t inspiring you, it’s a wasted night of writers block.
For Plato, the journey of Truth is one where you follow your guiding perspective to the point where it reaches an “aporia," a block in the path, and so you need to revise your guiding perspective. One of the clearest examples of this in modern times Is the long journey of a fundamentalist to overturning their worldview and becoming secular.
What do others think belongs to the essence of Truth?
“Contradiction" reminds me of textual hermeneutics. There is, of course, the message the author intended, like in Moby Dick where we learn about the tragic nature of revenge. But, as Derrida pointed out (“There is nothing beyond the text"), there may also be unconscious themes that the author didn’t consciously intend, but she accidentally put in the text nonetheless. Moreover, there may be a “trace" of something in the author’s text that may contradict (“contra dicere in Latin," “speak against") the author’s project, such as the way Aristotle may have detected the hint of something in Plato’s texts that threatened to overthrow Platonism. Or, how an author’s moral message may be tainted by hints of bigotry. And texts can be inherently ambiguous. So there can be a plurality of interpretations of the same text, while some interpretations “speak against" others, with no real ground for deciding between them: eg., Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, or charismatic healer, or Cynic philosopher, or Jewish Messiah, or prophet of social change, or mythical celestial being, or zealot. Each faction of interpreters point out that their model explains the available evidence, and that their model can effectively explain away any supposedly recalcitrant evidence. Hermeneutics are humbling processes that remind us of human frailty. And that’s a good thing. Untold tragedy has happened in human history because people have acquainted “truth" with “certainty." Certainty, as Nietzsche showed, is a psychological state, not a guarantee of truth. Everyone has had different points of view about things they once were “certain" about, such as Dr. Bart Ehrman’s fundamentalist youth changing into a liberal perspective of the academy. As Heidegger said, truth is more primordially seen as “aletheia," which is not just “correctness," but more originally (with the alpha privative, “a-letheia") “unconcealed," or “revealed," or “exemplary," like when we speak of someone going out of their way to help us that they are demonstrating what it means to be a “true" friend. Before there can be truth as “correctness" (the agreement of a proposition with a state of affairs), there must be “a-letheia," “un-hiddenness." For instance, before 1+1=2 is “true" for a child, it must be “revealed" with manipulatives that when you group one thing with another thing, you get two things. And, as Heidegger said, there is a “giving" to truth (“Es gibt Sein," in German). Anyone who has stayed up all night trying with futility to solve a problem, when suddenly the answer “comes to them," knows this (Eureka! I’ve found it - in Greek). The phenomenological experience of truth is more than just sheer effort, because there must be a revealing and a finding of what is given. Even today people in the Arts still speak of their’ ‘Muse,’ and if the muse isn’t inspiring you, it’s a wasted night of writers block. For Plato, the journey of Truth is one where you follow your guiding perspective to the point where it reaches an “aporia," a block in the path, and so you need to revise your guiding perspective. One of the clearest examples of this in modern times Is the long journey of a fundamentalist to overturning their worldview and becoming secular. What do others think belongs to the essence of Truth?Thank goodness for the "edit" feature!
As I said, for Plato, the journey of Truth is one where you follow your guiding perspective to the point where it reaches an “aporia," a block in the path, and so you experience wonder (thaumazein) that you need to revise your guiding perspective. There is something beyond your guiding perspective which your guiding perspective can’t assimilate and so needs to be revised, something beyond Being (epekeina tes ousias, a phrase from Plato’s Republic 509b), which Plato called the idea tou agathou, (Republic 508e 2-3),the Idea of the Good, which is the source of all philosophical reflection One of the clearest examples of this in modern times Is the long journey of a fundamentalist to overturning their worldview and becoming secular.
Perhaps truth is best characterized as a multilayered concept wherein it is composed of many layers, rather like an onion, where we progressively ‘peel back’ the layers revealing deeper truths or ‘layers’.
This can be shown when two great truths seems to contradict one another. From such a conflict, a deeper insight emerges.
Heidegger says that truth as “correctness” morphed into truth as “certainty with no doubt” when “truth” got assimilated into the Christian framework and got recast in the light of “certainty of salvation.”
Heidegger says that truth as "correctness" morphed into truth as "certainty with no doubt" when "truth" got assimilated into the Christian framework and got recast in the light of "certainty of salvation."What bothers me about this approach is it means you have to give up asking questions.
Heidegger says that truth as "correctness" morphed into truth as "certainty with no doubt" when "truth" got assimilated into the Christian framework and got recast in the light of "certainty of salvation."What Heidegger and others say which the author of this topic depend on for body stabilization of this text , 1st of all is pure hear-say & 2nd, all within the text is primordial to time, and therefore rides the circle of karmic law. Truth as correctness cannot morph into truth as certain, for the rotation of the circle void anything that is not of the circle. Truth is beyond the circle.
Heidegger says that truth as "correctness" morphed into truth as "certainty with no doubt" when "truth" got assimilated into the Christian framework and got recast in the light of "certainty of salvation."What Heidegger and others say which the author of this topic depend on for body stabilization of this text , 1st of all is pure hear-say & 2nd, all within the text is primordial to time, and therefore rides the circle of karmic law. Truth as correctness cannot morph into truth as certain, for the rotation of the circle void anything that is not of the circle. Truth is beyond the circle.You forgot to add..."goo goo ga joob".
I think it was Godel who basically suggested that truth was a mirage. I suspect Popper recognized it also when he suggested that you could never verify the truth, only falsify the false. It is an unreachable asymptote. The best we can do is use our knowledge to make predictions and refine our “truth” when our predictions are wrong. The Idea of the Good itself constantly encounters aporia.