There is always that simple question, does truth exist. Whether or not truth exists is a question that is asked and “answered” by scholars’ religious groups, and everyone in between. But does truth really exist and if so does “context” come into play, or is it a diversion. There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers and others agree. Many theories of truth, commonly involving different definitions of “truth”, continue to be debated. The answer could possibly be lying in other theories and paradigms.
When one makes the statement that “context is all”, one is implying that what is most important is how a person perceives something. There are differing claims on such questions as whether context constitutes truth, in, Philosophy, Science, Art and Religion. Philosophy in it’s self, doesn’t have a common truth. Context relates only in the view points of each philosopher. Context makes truth clear. Whether it is Empiricism, Rationalism, Kantianism, Skepticism, or any others, truth is only what is perceived. In Empiricism truth is defined by physical aspects in which one finds the answers.
Rationalism constitutes mental thought and actions in order to determine its truth. By actually using reason instead of senses, truth in context can easily be determined differently. Kantianism is a fusion of both. It uses Kant’s agenda of an a priori knowledge, stating that, “One can’t know reality because our minds structure our experience of reality. ” That is one cannot know any thing further than the “bubble” ones mind have set for themselves. Skepticism is viewed by most philosophers as one of the more extreme epistemologies, only because it is seen to completely evade truth in all ways possible.
Skeptics see that truth is only a distraction for a paradigm one is actually working in. This, in actuality, defies everything they believe in, which shows that in skepticism, truth does not and cannot exist. In science there are only theories that have not been proven but have been accepted in society as truth. Many people believe that science is the best route, if not the only route, to truth about the natural world. Other people, including many scientists, believe that scientific knowledge may not be perfectly true, but it is closer to the truth than other sources of knowledge and beliefs.
This is not so. In a statement by Dr. Terry Hawles a scientist at Dharma Haven stated, “Although the root meaning of the word “science” is “to know,” a word meaning “to learn” or “to explore” might have been more appropriate. ” He later goes on to speak about the “tricks” scientists play on society, showing, that certain truths are not always true in the world of science. Looking back through history, one can see that it generally takes a few special people and a favorable society for the idea to emerge that if you have a theory, then you should test it.
This may be true, but, by only testing a theory and not proving the theory is correct one cannot say that a certain theory is true. But context gives existence to theses scientific theories which can relate them to truth, but not necessarily give actual truth. Art plays an immense role in what Europeans thought of as their discovery of truth. To speak of religious art in the sense that religious themes are depicted in the art, religious persons were the artists, or that some special religious group or church has decided that the art is orthodox and therefore official?
All of these definitions have been used at one time or another to define religious art. But does this constitute truth in context? The context in art plays a serious role, without being able to determine the context of Art in itself. By doing this, then and only then would one be able to find truth. Another form of “art isthe so-called Venus of Willendorf a sculpture from the Paleolithic era”, which depicts a pregnant woman. This was looked upon at the time, as a symbolic figure for what all women should look like.
Abstract art such as the works of Pablo Picasso based on the time era his paintings were accepted by the people of a different age, but if the paintings based solely on context, had been put into the Renaissance, the people of that era would have said his painting were not true art. Art, unlike the others, is very abstract, that is one cannot view, study, or test art, and then call it art. But on the other hand art was set into eras for a certain particular art form to be able to persuade the people.
It’s an expression of the mind and heart, “Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. An artist recreates those aspects of reality which represent his fundamental view of man’s nature” (Ayn Rand, ‘Art and Cognition’). There for, it is difficult to say whether or not- based on context- something is art. In religion there are many different answers for what religious groups believe is the response for truth. Christianity, which is what I will be discussing on, finds Jesus Christ to be there one and only answer for truth. After conception from the “holy spirit” Jesus was born unto Mary.
Once Jesus Christ was later crucified in his adult years, he was considered the Christian messiah. New branches of Christianity today say that Jesus was not the divine truth, but in the earlier Christian faith, this was not so. In the actual context of Jesus Christ, he states by Pilate, that he is truth. And therefore by basing the gospels preaching’s on whether or not context comes into play one can say, yes it does. A few historians believe another reason for its truth is that religious institutions actively, and many times very aggressively, promote their theological model of God.
Some tell people that God is love, forgiving, and merciful. Others tell people that God is always watching “you”: and recording every mistake one can make. If one doesn’t do what the church says, this angry God is going to set down upon the earth his rage and that God is the only one who can get someone after he or she is dead. The theological model of God can play a very powerful role in the ideology based on whether or not there is an existence for truth in context of the bible or gospels.
Based off of Subjective and Objective views on the topics at hand, many philosophers Christians, and scientists used their own belief systems to come up with there answers just as Artisans used the time eras to come up with the way they should use there “art” ,or context in the art, to show significance and value. Such as the subjective view point on philosophy and science, each have a different philosopher’s or scientist’s ideology, which then expands into an objective reasoning on the theories that were established.
Or the subjective views of an artist, what they want to create, their ways in doing it, and the obvious objectivity of Christianity in the answer for truth in Christ Jesus. These are all factors that provide the answers for whether truth lies in the very context that holds significance in it. Therefore context does constitute truth in the sense that truth is based off of context in order to define what is right and/or wrong, significance and insignificance or even what could become a possible new theory or law. Being left with this, context does constitute truth, but does context give existence to truth? Yes.