Thursday, August 23, 2018
The "Ultimate Truth"
I’ve heard many true statements referring to history before, but nothing resonated with me so clearly and so honestly as “History is written from the perspective of the present”. I think this idea really connects with the topics of historical orthodoxy and revisionism, which we discussed in class on Tuesday. When we were talking about this, I noticed that all the examples we brought up were ones from the present. This makes sense, because the knowledge that would be most directly applicable to our lives is that which concerns the world we are living in now. However, I decided to consider these topics as they are connected not just to our own time, but to various periods throughout history. By looking at these ideas with a much wider lens, I realized that there have been many moments throughout history where what was considered orthodox, and what was considered revisionary, actually switched. A prime example of this is with the idea of a heliocentric solar system. Before the time of the revisionist Copernicus, the “historical orthodox” idea was that the solar system was centered around the Earth. Anyone from modern times looking back at text that supports that theory would immediately dismiss them as uninformed, ridiculous, and utterly wrong. This really shows how something that was once considered the truth can, over the course of history, change completely. By applying the label of “historical orthodoxy” to this, we’re really able to see how, while the fundamental idea behind what it means to be orthodox has not changed, the things that are considered orthodox most certainly have. Overall, I think that this topic really contributes to the idea that there isn't necessarily one "ultimate truth", and that, for many situations, the "truth" is simply what a group of people collectively believe in that moment.
I’ve added a link below to a site I found which describes some of the greatest shifts in ideology and thinking throughout time. Many of them follow this pattern of once being rejected as strange and unorthodox, but, over time, and with mounting evidence supporting them, became accepted as the traditional way of thinking.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/22/philosophy.plato
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the complexity of this article - and how it acknowledges how there can be more than one "truth" at one time, depending on the group of people discussing it.
ReplyDeleteIn history I agree with the fact that there is no "ultimate truth". After all, all historical facts are either memories (which can falter) or artifacts (which can be biased or faked). So I doubt in history we can ever truly know, we can only use analysis and argumentation to make a hypothesis acceptable. But this raises a question. When can we ever be certain? The reason I like mathematics so much is because in my opinion, the mathematical world is one in which there is absolute truth. 1+1 will always equate 2, simply because of the definitions of 1 and 2. If numbers are a human invention, then humans have reached absolute truth. If numbers are part of the universe (as suggested by Plato) then there exists absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the article you found and how it demonstrates that historical orthodoxy can be applied to many aspects of society, including economics, philosophy, science, human rights, etc. I also really liked how you defined truth, it's quite different from how most people today see the idea of truth.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your article because you showed us how much we have an impact on history and how as time goes on things change. Your article made me learn something about the world and I liked how you showed how "historical orthodoxy" can be applied to our world today. I also agree that there is no ultimate truth because a lot of things get twisted and turned and everyone has a different definition of everything. I just found the topic you wrote about and how you wrote it to be interesting.
ReplyDelete