Just another WordPress weblog
October 23, 2007
Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 6:04 pm

The nature of truth has been discussed for very long. It was in the ancient Greece that this discussion toke the main shape it had for many centuries: consensual truth vs. ideal truth. However in the 20th century that confrontation may have finally ended. That dichotomy may have been just a persistent illusion born along the creation of the phonetic writing and alphabet. From that perspective a more accurate definition of truth emerged: Truth is a cultural instrument that changes as humans need it to change in order to adapt to the constant changing world where they live.

Since the beginning of classical Greek philosophy, there have been several attempts to define truth. At least four major types of truth theory have been proposed: correspondence theories coherence theories (coherentism, idealism), pragmatic theories, and deflationary theories. The latter group encompasses a wide variety of views, including the redundancy theory, the disquotation theory, and the prosentential theory.

However these attempts to define truth may have been futile and actually may have been born from an illusion: the one that appears along literacy and the phonetic alphabet. The notion that something is eternal and unchangeable –something that share most of the previous definitions of truth- actually seem to be originated after the human race got in contact with literacy and the unchangeable and perennial written word. On cultures without phonetic literacy, truth is mostly understood as something that changes according to the circumstances.

In recent times truth has begun to be understood as just a cultural creation of our specie.  Something that we use to better adapt to a constantly changing world that is always offering us new challenges and thus requiring that we change our ways and beliefs. Truth can be understood as a cultural instrument that allows us, humans, to adapt tour environment. As the environment changes, so it does what is taken as truth.

The second paragraph on this essay comes from the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. It is not properly quoted or paraphrased. I decided to publish it as I presented it in class to be offer an accurate picture of the situation. The teacher duty was to indicate how to properly quote. I did disclose the origin of that paragraph to the teacher. However, for Rotonda the whole essay was plagiarism as well the other essay here. Finally, this incident ended with an apology from the Dean in front of the class. I was transfer to another class and I approved it.

El Segundo párrafo de este ensayo viene de la Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. No está bien citado o parafraseado. Decidí publicarlos acá tal como lo presente en clases para dar una idea exacta de la situación. El deber de la profesora era indicar como hacer la cita adecuadamente. Yo le dije cual era el origen de ese párrafo. Sin embargo, Rotonda continúo diciendo que todo el ensayo es un plagio, igual que el otro ensayo presentado acá. Finalmente, este incidente termino con una disculpa de la Decana en frente de la clase. Me transfirieron a otra clase y aprobe el curso.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment