Epistemology in the Modern Age

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge. What is knowledge? What can be known? How can it be known? These are just some of the core questions that field of epistemology wishes to answer. What will be looked at today are two types of truth, and inspiration and art. Both matters relate interestingly to the modern day and the implications can either be viewed as flaws in the ‘system’.

The two types of truth are two deferring ideas in regards to the nature of truth. One type which was formed by Democritus, an Ancient Greek per-Socratic philosopher, is that there is only one objective and universal truth. This truth that lies beyond sense-perception because if sense-perception were to be used as the criterion of truth, it simply would not work. As, for a sick man food and drink tastes different, for a person acclimatised to different weather, it may feel hot or cold. As Democritus says, ‘By convention sweet, by convention bitter; by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colour, but in reality atoms and void.’ Atoms and void, which is likely a reference to Democritus’ philosophy of atomism - the theory that the physical universe is an aggregate of fixed units, atoms which found much success in the natural sciences - and considering this theory, it shows that beyond the senses there are always these fixed particles that are unwavering, unchanging in presence and in nature which of course is also what a singular and universal truth would represent. Predicating the search for truth on sense-perception would lead to a constantly fluctuating and contradicting inquiry. How would one decide which person is right? The one who says the weather is cold or the one who says it is warm? It would be almost, if not completely impossible. Hence relying on the supposed superficiality of sense-perception would not serve well for neither person would be correct. At least it would not be possible to prove one right, with there still being another variable unchecked.

The sophist Protagoras disagreed with this notion that there is no truth in the sense-perception, for he believed that truth is relative for ‘Man is the measure of all things’ as he famously said. A belief is true for the person who proposed it, the counter argument for that belief may be untrue to the person, but this rebuttal would be true for the one who said it. Thus, all beliefs are true to some extent, depending on whose mouth the words were uttered from, and who ears heard the words and interpreted it to be advice, or blasphemy.

Democritus refuted this by saying that if all truths are relative, then the belief that all truths are in fact not the truth, would be true.

In terms of these two truths, it is not a matter of one is right and one is wrong. Both are susceptible to various and every-changing combinations of epithets. In fact, they have a sort of relationship in this world, and it can represent the dichotomy of human nature.

Now, how does this relate to the modern day, specifically the subject of propaganda which can in turn be linked to subject matters like the Nazi regime, to the war between Russia and Ukraine happening right now. Regardless, propaganda can be seen to be an example of relative truth. For, while propaganda can many a time be seen to be an attempt at making the propagandist’s agenda seem like the one objective truth, in reality it is more of a forced relative truth. One side believes what their government says to be correct and the case is the same on the other side. This makes it hard for people whose eyes are clouded by mendacity which propaganda serves to spread, to see the objective truth. In that way, propaganda corrupts epistemology for it is twisting and deforming information, but at the same tie it challenges epistemology to sift truth from lies more effectively.

Of course, the objective truth that is being referred to is not the structure of the universe, for the objects of the universe are capable of much complexity, and to find the veracity in that, one must use use the mindset of searching for a universal truth, whilst considering other perspectives as in relative truth. Democritus’ philosophy of atomism shows the truth to the natural universe in regards to its existence. But what of the truth to the actions that take place within the natural universe? Citing atoms does not help in seeking clarity amongst bloodshed, corruption, and evil. Essentially, when it comes to other problems and questions, one should seek to find the objective truth by considering the various other truths people have.

Now, what is the problem with relative truth in the case of propaganda?

Propaganda as an idea and its effects is only morally viable if one adopts the view of relative truth that Protagoras supports. But, relative truth has a problem and thus propaganda has a problem. If that belief is simply false, yet everybody respects and deems it true it will only have negative consequences. The person is stuck in limbo, a limbo of the wrong that will only lead to actions predicated in falsehood, effects caused by the falsehood, and implications that can hurt many. Moreover, there is a relative truth in propaganda but no universal truth. Thus if misinformation is not good and only apparently acceptable with the agreeableness of Protagoras and is pushing for something that based on some objective truth would be wrong, well then it is wrong is it not?

Furthermore, from the neutral standpoint, it is arguably better to have an objective truth, though acknowledging everybody’s belief to have worth is a better way to achieve harmony. Living the disturbed life of the knowing, and living a comfortable life as somebody who does not explore fields beyond the confines put on their life which they happily live with. Propaganda forces the latter, and morally and philosophically it is wrong.

Before proceeding, one should seek to understand what truth even accomplishes. Truth is arguably the essence of knowledge but, if obtained, what would be its effect? Well it being the essence, the core, then it has the capacity to clear up the mind and rid it from other thoughts and dross that do not have the same value or veracity as the new found truth. It can cleanse in that sense, and lay a new foundation - it could be a serene landscape that calms and transfigures or a haunting world where languid air, malevolent, red skies and an intimidating sun that constantly disturbs. Such is the potential for truth when it comes to the mind.

When there are multiple people involved with a certain truth, a similar effect may take place. It may calm - for example, good news from a doctor will allow for some relief. On the other hand, a bitter revelation to a scandal will inspire shock, disdain, and disturb the soul.

What of a more specific situation, where the truth is what required to persevere. Then it is very simple, depending on whether it is obtained or not, uncovered or not, the goal will fail or be accomplished

Truth can act as a sort of solution, but when the solution is known, why do tragedies and bad events keep happening? Because human nature does not allow for that

Truth is arguably a construct of the consciousness, but the feelings upon which people act - that is very sub-conscious. Moreover, when truth acts as a solution to everything in the given situation, it is objective and universal. But, going beyond desires and devoting oneself to the greater cause is far too hard and supposedly worse option that staying in the world of relative truth. A world where one can ignore others and other more valid points of view, as one writhes in turpitude but it is justified and seen as perfectly acceptable because of the superficial sheen that the belief of Protagoras’ relative truth.

Such is the case of war - the creation of humans which has spanned from the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia to the modern ages with Ukraine and Russia fighting. The truth of war to be discussed, is not about the reason Russia decided to invade Ukraine or why Hitler invaded Poland - delving into specific scenarios will show different yet similar causes. The truth to be discussed is that of the concept of war, where one side fights another. The truth to such a concept is not complex, it is that there is nothing good that comes from it - only wanton destruction.

But if the truth to war is known, if it is clear that it is objectively bad why does it still tohappen? Over the history of mankind it is a commonality. The reason may be that the values that drive the people with power to take some actions lay in the subconscious while constructs such as truth lay in the consciousness. Till one is a slave to the subconscious, human nature will continue to disappoint in many ways. The truth in this case, is like a rampart that is there not to act as a defence from assaults from beyond, but to protect the world from what evil forces reside inside the castle. But there is always some crack, some gap, a self-deception that allows the forces to escape.

Earlier the examples of the Nazi Regime and Russia were given. Hitler invaded Poland for a number of reasons, but mainly it was ‘lebensraum’ - the goal of increasing living space for the Aryan population. Putin invaded Ukraine to try and control Ukraine. Greed often plays a part in the causes of war and it lies in the subconscious. Sometimes, it is far too powerful to simply forsake for the greater goal of an objective truthful.

To conclude, this essay was written not to try and formulate a solution to some philosophical problem. It was to use the two types of truth proposed by Democritus and Protagoras to understand a number of things in the modern age, specifically propaganda and war which is extremely relevant in the current climate. Relative truth shows up to be a philosophy that would be able to keep harmony in the world, and objective truth would have the capacity to calm but also disturb.

War and propaganda relate to the two types of truths in different ways, but it is clear that the two types of truth have a sort of relationship. Imagine a circular path drawn in a field. That represents the route of relative truth for using that ideology to prove anything as definite would be infinite tautology of argument and refute to a very banal extent. But if one choose to go beyond the path, where ones individual beliefs are apparently always true, and venture into the centre of the circle, one can understand all the perspectives and angles, one can compare and evaluate and settle on one objective truth. Based on one’s stance the world becomes, a better or a worse place.

By Advik Lahiri

Image Credit: https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014/januaryfebruary/feature/culture-war