Response 13

Is our "way of knowing", our contemporary empirical standard of truth, better than the deterministic standard of truth that Tzvetan Todorov attributes to Columbus? In a way, I feel like answering this question is cheating, because its a question that my last reflection and conversation with BoVice fairly directly addressed. But in another way its nice to engage in a more sustained, less fragmented dialog than what typically occurs in this forum. The nature of truth is a question that we can examine in almost infinite detail and study along almost infinite tangent

The purpose of existence is by definition to achieve happiness. In judging a standard of truth, we should evaluate the ability of that standard to create happiness. The first question we must answer is whether there are things that exist objectively and supersede a particular standard of truth. I would answer yes. First, our own existence and the sensations that constitute this existence are fundamentally and objectively true. Second, the nature of happiness is fundamentally true. Unfortunately, while we are party to the first truth, we are only partially party to the second truth. Without a standard of truth, we cannot link feelings to external causes; we realize that the sensation of pain makes us unhappy but do not understand why we are in pain.

In order to analyze the utility of a standard of truth, we need to first adopt a standard of truth. First, let's adopt some modern and vaguely empirical standard of truth. Although it is impossible to definitively know whether Columbus was happy, Todorov's portrayal isn't one of a deeply unhappy man. Plus, empiricism tells us that, statistically, religious people are happier; although whether this is a result of religion or community involvement is up for debate, the certainty of eternal bliss seems likely to promote happiness. By this standard, Columbus's "way of knowing" actually seems pretty effective, and perhaps more effective than an empirical standard of knowing that means we have to spend a lot of time worrying over our own fallibility and the uncertainty of  the future.

On the other hand, empiricism would also suggest that, in the long run, an empirical standard of truth is the only sustainable one. Empiricism, like any standard of truth, is based upon arbitrarily deeming certain things as true. However, in an empirical standard of truth, it is not a particular experience that is deemed as true, but rather the preponderance of experiences. If we posit that there is some degree of universality in the human experience, basing truth on the preponderance of what individuals experience leads to the creation of a fairly common standard of truth -- one in which individuals are unlikely (or at least less likely) to be at odds with each other. Columbus may have been happy, but if his weapons were not superior to those of the Indians, his life would have been a short happy one.