Spiritual Truth or Absolute Truth

Spiritual Truth or Absolute Truth

In the sense of defining THE TRUTH I have been very pragmatic in my reasoning, I do not agree with the different versions or definitions of the term Truth. I consider that THE TRUTH is one, in all cases and any circumstance there is only one Truth.

If we speak of different Truths we are actually speaking of different interpretations of a fact or belief but not of Truth, because in that case those who speak of True Truth, for example, would also have to speak of Liar Truth, some argue that it is my Truth and that is your Truth, but I am quite sure that if you both come to the Truth you would realize that both that of one and the other is the same, because I repeat the Truth is one.

The Spiritual or Absolute Truth

THE TRUTH is what we know as THE ALL, GOD, THE UNIVERSE, CREATED AND NOT CREATED THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE PRINCIPLE AND THE END and there is only one, "ALL WE ARE PART OF THE ALL AND THE EVERYTHING IS PART OF EACH ONE OF OURSELVES "there can be no distinction or differentiation, THE ALL and THE NOTHING are part of the same and ALL WE ARE ONE.

Then TRUTH is one, and as I mentioned earlier the rest are simple interpretations.

"THE TRUTH IS SIMPLER FROM THEM THAT EVERYONE HAS SAID OR WRITTEN" 

Pope John XXIII

In human terms, the use of the word truth encompasses Honesty, Good Faith and Human Sincerity in general, to the agreement of knowledge with things that are affirmed as realities: the facts or the thing in particular; as well as the relation of facts or things in their totality in the constitution of the All, the Universe.

Then I will expose some concepts of different beliefs, religions, perceptions and truth seen by science, only as comparative analysis and share the different criteria and that each one draw their own conclusions, because as I said, I only believe in one TRUTH that in real terms is THE TRUTH or ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

For classical Hebrew the term `emunah means primarily 'trust', 'faithfulness'. Things are true when they are "reliable", faithful because they fulfill what they offer.

The term does not have a single definition in which most scholars agree, and theories of truth continue to be widely debated. There are different positions on issues such as:

What constitutes the truth.

• With what criterion we can identify and define it.
• If the human being possesses innate knowledge or can only acquire them.
• Whether revelations or truth exist can only be attained through experience, understanding, and reason.
• Whether truth is subjective or objective.
• Whether the truth is relative or absolute.
• And to what degree can each of these properties be affirmed.

The question for the truth is and has been the subject of debate between theologians, philosophers and logicians throughout the centuries considering a theme concerning the soul and the study of a so-called rational psychology within the field of philosophy.

At present it is a subject of scientific investigation as well as of philosophical foundation:

Scientific research on cognitive function introduces new perspectives on evidence-based knowledge as an epistemologically true belief with valid justification.

The importance of this concept is that it is rooted in the heart of any personal, social and cultural assumption. Hence its complexity.

When we say something "is true," what kind of entity is that something? This is: what kind of entities are the carriers of truth?

They are usually considered as

• Facts and things
• The beliefs
• The sentence-case
• Propositions.

Each with its advantages and its problems

The position adopted in favor of one or the other will depend, at times, on more general philosophical inclinations:

• Those who reject the possibility of true knowledge will tend to reject any sense of truth other than experience in and for itself.
• Those who reject the existence of mental entities tend to reject beliefs as carriers of truth.
• Those who sympathize with nominalism will tend to sympathize with case-sentences as truth carriers.
• Those who reject the existence of abstract entities tend to reject propositions as truth carriers.
• Those who value moral truth over lying tend to regard truth as the exercise of virtues such as fidelity, honesty, sincerity in saying, etc .; a person is truthful in that it shows its authenticity in the coherence of its way of existing in the world and its cultural historical interpretation.

When we speak of things, of realities, we speak fundamentally of ontology. And our criterion must be the ontological truth.

When we speak of propositions, we speak fundamentally of logic. And our criterion must be the formal truth.

When we speak of beliefs, we speak fundamentally of epistemology and our criterion must be the logical or semantic truth as epistemological truth.

When we speak of morality we speak of the truthfulness of a person. We speak of a moral virtue. Truth as a task of individual doing as well as social and historical.

When we speak of sentence-case, we speak fundamentally of affirmations of beliefs expressed through cultural and social language and our criterion should include, besides all the above, the rules of the grammar: of the syntax in terms of the logical sense; of semantics in terms of the epistemological sense; and of pragmatics in terms of anthropological, cultural and social meaning and application to the concrete case.

Truth rides between all these fields of knowledge and through all its possible relationships; which makes understandable the enormous difficulty of defining a univocal concept.

As often happens with the great concepts and the words that express them, we all know what they are and we know how to use the terms that mean them, provided we do not have to explain it. The concept of truth is in this sense paradigmatic.

According to scholars, this relation between the concepts and the words that express it, gives rise to new notions about new concepts of truth, which are defined as follows:

Analytical truth: truth of reason. Its foundation lies in the very structure of human knowledge, insofar as it depends on its own a priori structures, ie independent of experience. These truths are formal, universal and necessary, but do not extend knowledge; and when applied to content outside the experience lead to paralogisms and antinomies.

Synthetic Truth: truth in fact. Its origin is a content of sensible experience, as matter that is formalized by the forms and categories of the understanding. That is why its truth is a synthesis of the material and the formal.

Truth to Priori: From what has been said before, analytic truths do not depend on experience, so they are a priori.

What constitutes the truth

• With what criterion we can identify and define it.
• If the human being possesses innate knowledge or can only acquire them.
• Whether revelations or truth exist can only be attained through experience, understanding, and reason.
• Whether truth is subjective or objective.
• Whether the truth is relative or absolute.
• And to what degree can each of these properties be affirmed.

The question for the truth is and has been the subject of debate between theologians, philosophers and logicians throughout the centuries considering a theme concerning the soul and the study of a so-called rational psychology within the field of philosophy.

At present it is the subject of scientific investigation as well as of philosophical foundation:

Scientific research on cognitive function introduces new perspectives on evidence-based knowledge as an epistemologically true belief with valid justification.

The importance of this concept is that it is rooted in the heart of any personal, social and cultural assumption. Hence its complexity.

When we say something "is true," what kind of entity is that something? This is what kind of entities are the carriers of truth?

They are usually considered as:

• Facts and things
• The beliefs
• The sentence-case
• Propositions.

Each with its advantages and its problems

The position adopted in favor of one or the other will depend, at times, on more general philosophical inclinations:

Those who reject the possibility of true knowledge will tend to reject any sense of truth other than experience in and for itself.

Those who reject the existence of mental entities tend to reject beliefs as carriers of truth.

Those who sympathize with nominalism will tend to sympathize with case-sentences as truth carriers.

Those who reject the existence of abstract entities tend to reject propositions as truth carriers.

Those who value moral truth over lying tend to regard truth as the exercise of virtues such as fidelity, honesty, sincerity in saying, etc .; the person is truthful in that it shows its authenticity in the coherence of its way of existing in the world and its cultural historical interpretation.

When we speak of things, of realities, we speak fundamentally of ontology. And our criterion must be the ontological truth.

When we speak of propositions, we speak fundamentally of logic. And our criterion must be the formal truth.

When we speak of beliefs, we speak fundamentally of epistemology and our criterion must be the logical or semantic truth the epistemological truth.

When we speak of morality we speak of the truthfulness of a person. We speak of moral virtue. Truth as a task of individual doing as well as social and historical.

When we speak of sentence-case, we speak fundamentally of affirmations of beliefs expressed through cultural and social language and our criterion should include, besides all the above, the rules of the grammar: of the syntax in terms of the logical sense; of semantics in terms of the epistemological sense; and of pragmatics in terms of anthropological, cultural and social meaning and application to the concrete case.

Truth rides between all these fields of knowledge and through all its possible relationships; which makes understandable the enormous difficulty of defining a univocal concept.

As often happens with the great concepts and the words that express them, we all know what they are and we know how to use the terms that mean them, provided we do not have to explain it. The concept of truth is in this sense paradigmatic.

According to scholars, this relation between the concepts and the words that express it, gives rise to new notions about new concepts of truth, which are defined as follows:

Analytical Truth

truth of reason. Its foundation lies in the very structure of human knowledge, insofar as it depends on its own prior structures, ie independent of experience. These truths are formal, universal and necessary, but do not extend knowledge; and when applied to content outside the experience lead to paralogisms and antinomies.

Synthetic Truth: truth in fact. Its origin is a content of sensible experience, the matter that is formalized by the forms and categories of the understanding. That is why it is a synthesis of the material and the formal.

Truth to Priori: From what has been said before, analytic truths do not depend on experience, so they are a priori.

Truth a Posteriori: From what has been said previously, synthetic truths depend on experience, so they are a posteriori.

Synthetic Truth to Priori: synthesis of the previous ones, constitute, according to Kant, the truths proper to science.

Transcendental Truth: Whereas the a priori structures of knowledge are transcendental, they are truths that transcend the subjective experience of the individual, being common to the human race. But at the same time that they can not transcend this condition, they can not be transcendent.

The limit of scientific knowledge by reason is the phenomenal world, understanding as such the field of possible experience. The real, as such is thinkable, noumene, but we can not know it as such, but as a known (or knowable) reality, that is conditioned to the conditions of phenomenal experience.

Philosophical Truth, Truth as System and Absolute Truth

The excision of matter-form, consciousness-extension, subject-object, staged by Descartes as res cogitans-res extensive, and definitively consecrated as a phenomenon-noumenon by Kant, finds its resolution and overcoming in Hegel's philosophy on the foundation unifies them: the Absolute.

The truth is not found in the thing. The thing, as a result, is but the corpse that remains of the dialectical process of the tendency that has generated it: the becoming; dialectical process where contradictions appear and are resolved in the unity of the All as the Absolute Subject.

The Absolute Truth is philosophy itself; Truth as System

The Ultimate Truth for Hegel consists in the articulation that each concrete thing has with the Absolute Spirit, as a fundamental reality in its development as a dialectical process. That articulation is what Hegel calls the system. Philosophical truth appears articulated as a system.

System does not mean a set of ordered propositions, but that internal articulation that each thing, in its being, has with the absolute being of the universe.

Such is also the sense of Marxist truth, though interpreted from the materialist point of view. Truth is a development of history driven by the dialectic of class struggle. Its manifestation as truth will come from the hand of the Revolution

Types of Truth

Considering the different interpretations given to the Truth according to the different points of view and belief, we could differentiate two types of Verades, The Subjective Truths and THE Objective Truths:

The Subjective Truths are those with which we are most intimately acquainted, since their content of truth finds its foundation in the subject who knows and formulates that truth. They are the truths of our own experience.

Subjectivism is the theory that all truths are subjective, that is, they depend on the subject they know.

It is sometimes considered improperly as a subjective condition that the subject is not the individual subject but the Kantian transcendental subject. But in that case the objectivity of knowledge would be justified independently of the formulation of an individual subject. In that case we would speak of a gnoseological anthropocentrism.

In contrast, objective truths pretend to be independent of our subjective beliefs and tastes and the basis of the same independent of the fact of being known by the individual subject. Such is the pretense of scientific truth.

When it is recognized that there are or may be other points of view or way of knowing then that of subjectivism one must speak of perspectivism.

Relative Truths are those ideas or propositions that are only true in relation to some norm, convention or point of view. Usually, the norm mentioned are the principles of the culture itself. Everyone agrees that the truth or falsity of some ideas is relative: If it is said that the fork is to the left of the spoon, it depends on where you are looking. However, relativism is the doctrine that all truths of a particular domain (say moral or aesthetic) are in this way, and Relativism implies that all truth is only in relation to one's own culture. For example, moral relativism is the perspective that points out that all truths are socially inspired. Some logical problems about relativism are explained in the article relativistic fallacy.

Relative truths can be contrasted with absolute or objective truths. The latter are ideas or propositions that would be true for all cultures and time. These ideas are often attributed to the very nature of the universe, of God, of human nature, or of some fundamental essence or transcendent significance.

The absolute in a particular domain of thought is the view that all propositions in such a domain are absolutely true or absolutely false without any restriction or condition.

Moral absolutism is the view that moral norms and principles are absolutely, that is, unconditioned completely true or false for all cultures in all ages and in every given situation regardless of the individuals affected.

Written by Andrés Gonzáles Hernández