Philosophy Now Forum

simonj28 wrote:You raise lots of interesting issues in your post. I am new to this forum so forgive me if I go over issues already covered previously.

Thanks. Issues will more than likely have been raised before; the important thing is that they might be 'new' to you and discussion may lead to further insights. For all concerned.

What is the attraction of truth? Truth provides certainty in a changing world.

I really don't know - what are we looking for ? Certainty ? What are the only certainties, or constants, in our personal lives ? We were born, we live, we die.

[Some]truths that have substance because they are support by perceptions in the world which you experience. These subjective truths are wide and varied.

So, how 'substantial' can subjective truths be if they are 'wide and varied'; shifting shaky sands ? Or concrete truths if one never travels, or opens one's mind.

The same argument can be applied to any other subjective truth. Let's take for example Einstein's theory that nothing can travel faster than light. Many would say that was an immutable objective truth. However, towards the end of last year test data in the Alps identified particles that did just that. Should we just ignore those test results because they don't fit into our view of the world?

Many might think that such theories are static and unchangeable; many might not even know about particular scientific theories. Usually, if something matters to you, then you don't leave it alone; people poke and play - and either are surprised or dismayed when an event changes their perceptions. Ignoring change doesn't make it go away.

Science is often perceived as being about truth; using immutable laws to give us control over the physical world....What is most important is how they work. They put forward ideas test them and draw conclusions. These they then put to peer review, other scientists do more tests, until finally a fairly substantive conclusion is drawn.

Yes, a continuing process of discovery based on certain truths; but what if the start point could be changed...

Philosophers are often seen in the same light as scientists pursuing the ultimate understanding of the world that will provide all answers. However, the philosophers skill like the scientists is to look at the world ask questions about it and challenge our understanding of it. The greater we hang on to what we perceive to be objective truths the more challenging it will be for us to accept and adapt to change.

What objective truths do philosophers hang on to?

Bringing this round to your main question about ideas that make a difference. I would say in the main these are ideas which are put forward when people's current understanding of the world has been challenged and help create a new certainty about the world.

Thanks for all your helpful examples.

Our individual ideas may not necessarily 'make a difference', be put forward as 'new' philosophical insights to solve the problems of the world; philos are probably the least likely to help create a new certainty even if one existed. What is important is - as you suggested earlier - how they work and what they concentrate their energies on.
I think that challenging our own and others' 'truths' in discussion is a good step forward. The PN forum allows that exchange and perhaps even a change of mind.

.