Philosophy Scenario Evaluation in Many Situations, Certain

Philosophy Scenario Evaluation

In many situations, certain questions can be answered in a manner that can be regarded as true in viewing the answers from different contexts. An answer that would not be widely-regarded as "truth" in today's day and age, may have been considered true in the context of an earlier time, which does not necessarily mean that this respective answer is wrong. In viewing the following three scenarios, one can better understand how a truth can be found not only in viewing certain subjective situations, but in the sense of being true in the context of a more objective world.

For instance, if asked, "What is the height of the Washington Monument?" A knowledgeable American would say, "555 feet 51.8 inches," while a knowledgeable Italian would say, "169,294 meters." In this instance, both speakers can be regarded as saying something true. While each individual's respective answer may seem to be completely different from one another at first glance, upon undergoing a deeper analysis, one will soon discover that in this instance, the common truth of the answer is hidden in the way it has been introduced. As the American has based his response on the U.S. customary system of measurement, and the Italian has based his on the metric system, the truth remains that each system, regardless of numerical response differences, bases its respective systems on the same measurement. In understanding this, one can better understand that these responses each say something true about the common, objective world in which we live, which allows certain things to remain true regardless of the ways in which different individuals or groups may perceive them.

In viewing the second example, an analysis proves to be much the same as the first. If asked, "What happens to the earth and sun around twilight?" we would say, "The earth is rotating away from the sun," while an ancient Greek might say, "The sun is moving away from the earth." In viewing each response in the context of its own subjective history, each speaker can, in fact, be regarded as saying something true. While by today's standards, the human population understands that during twilight hours, the earth and its respective locations begin to rotate away from the sun as it makes one full rotation lasting 24-hours, in the context of ancient Greece, this truth that we hold as fact today would be one that was regarded as nonsense. The ancient Greeks lived under a different truth, as at the point and time of their existence, science and knowledge led them to believe that at twilight, the sun moved further away from the earth itself. In understanding this facet of ancient Grecian beliefs, one can understand that only in applying the aforementioned statements to the context and time in which they were spoken, can they be regarded as true.

In understanding the differences between these answers in viewing them in a modern contemporary context, one can better understand that these answers cannot be viewed objectively as saying something common about the world we live in, aside from the assertion that some distinct action depicting the relationship between the sun and the earth is evident at twilight. However, science has improved over the centuries in order to shine a clearer light on the truth of the matter, eliminating the commonality of responses across the years and across societies.

Finally, one can gauge the quest to discover the truth in the following scenario. If asked when humans first populated the American west, scientific archaeologists would say, "Humans first populated the American west 10,000 years ago, when they came across the Bering Strait from Asia," while according to Paul Boghossian in his article "What the Sokal Hoax Ought to Teach Us," the belief is that Native American creation accounts hold that native peoples have lived in the Americas ever since their ancestors first emerged onto the surface of the earth from a subterranean world of spirits. In viewing this situation, many would believe that the first statement could be easily depicted as true while the second could be labeled as ludicrous. In actuality, neither statement can be regarded as pure truth despite the science that backs the first statement and the lack of science that backs the second.