What is Truth, and How Do We Find It? The Philosophers' Question

In my philosophical meetings, I've found that even philosophers strive to find answers.

I've learned that throughout history, many religions and ideologies have sought truth in answering fundamental questions. For example, ancient Egyptians believed that since the sun governs all, it must be treated with respect.

Another example can be found in Norse mythology: during the Viking era, this culture observed natural phenomena such as flowers and fruits growing in fields and sought to give them meaning. To do this, they attributed these phenomena to a figure named "Thor." The theory developed by the Vikings was that the deity "Thor" would cross the skies with a chariot pulled by two goats, wielding his hammer in the air, creating thunder that brought rain, causing plant growth.

Based on this myth, society began to believe in "Thor," viewing him as a positive figure with the power to control the rain and the yields of Norwegian fields. Because of these actions of Thor, he was deemed worthy of sacrifices, which they indeed offered in his honor. If we observe, we find that Viking culture sought an explanation for the natural phenomena it witnessed and asked: Why and how do plants grow? To answer this, it developed the aforementioned myth. Indeed, someone invented and developed the story of "Thor," and for a long time, society found satisfaction in this explanation and stopped tormenting itself with this question, as it already had an answer.

The greatest critic of myths was the philosopher Xenophanes, born in 570 BC. He discovered that every culture created its gods based on the appearance of its people. For example, in Africa, the gods were dark-skinned, in Europe, they were white, in Scandinavia—they were blond, and so on.

This fact proves that myths are merely ideas from people's imagination, as they invented idolatry according to their experiences because they knew nothing else. Clearly, such answers do not satisfy those who seek the truth. Even if they somewhat ease the minds of some in society, they do not prove to be genuine and truthful.

Throughout modern history, science sought relatively clear answers capable of deciphering some of the world's mysteries to find a solution to absolute truth. To prevent hypothetical inventions, they decided to accept only what could be proven, even though some scientific conclusions were refuted a generation later. This happened because many scientific conclusions were drawn not only from pure evidence but also from the interpretations of the scientist, who, by human nature, might err.

For example, in the 19th century, everyone believed the universe was filled with a substance called "ether," through which light propagated. Today, this idea is utterly rejected and even considered nonsense. Similarly, it is clear that many perceptions regarded as true today might be discredited tomorrow. From fossil research, we know about the existence of ancient animals, but we cannot be certain that their color was green. Although archaeologists draw conclusions and determine the color of ancient animals, the length of their necks, and what they fed on, none of this is certain, and it's quite possible that tomorrow there will be different conclusions. In other words, science is not absolute truth.

So, what is the definition of truth?

What is truth? How should it be defined, and can we say that a particular answer is absolute truth?

Today, there is a pluralistic stream claiming that there is not one single truth, but rather each person is entitled to create their own truth, even though there is a relative truth. In fact, although there is relative truth, like people considered beautiful by some and ugly by others, it still makes sense to believe there is also an absolute truth. For example: is there a God? There is only one answer to this question: yes or no. It is not logical to say He exists for me but not for you. Out of certain convenience, many claim this possibility exists, but these individuals are not objective, and it cannot be said that their thinking is unbiased, for otherwise, without a doubt, they would reach the truth. In fact, they prefer to believe in what is more convenient; for some people, it is "advantageous" to have a God, while for others, it is "disadvantageous," as it might interfere with implementing their ideas and achieving their goals.

We can summarize the definition of truth and the way to achieve it with a parable: Suppose you happen to witness the trial of a person accused of breaking into a house in a wealthy neighborhood, pointing a weapon at the house's residents, allowing his accomplice to empty a cabinet full of jewelry. The robbery ended without injuries or casualties. The robbers managed to escape, leaving behind a traumatized family that suffered psychologically. The judges in court try to ascertain and determine who is behind the robbery and is accused of planning it and to whom to attribute most of the act. In other words, the court must seek and bring the truth to light. How does it do this? First, it must establish through evidence that the crime was committed, and then it is hoped that the whole story will point to the suspect. However, we must know what things the court considers as presenting evidence, which is a more challenging task. There are several accepted methods in society to prove the truth. One method is the scientific approach. The scientist proposes a hypothesis and builds a theory on it. He attempts to prove the theory through mathematical calculations, experimentation, observation, and more. If the scientist manages to prove his theory, he is deemed correct. However, only those who witnessed the experiment and proof firsthand know for certain that it's true. Another way to prove things is through testimony. People who have witnessed a phenomenon can serve as testimony to the truth of the matter.

In our trial, the process is similar. There are witnesses who were present during the robbery. One testifies that they saw the suspect exiting through the back door of the house. Another adds that at the same time, they saw a car parked nearby with a license plate bearing the name of the suspect's city of residence, and the family points to the suspect who entered their home and identifies him. Nevertheless, the court is not entirely convinced. The family members talked among themselves before giving their testimony, and they might have coordinated their positions, making their testimony biased and false. However, if ten people who previously did not know each other and did not exchange information among themselves come and testify about the robbery, with a consistent story without contradictions, then the court will be confident in the truth of the matter.

There is no doubt that any person who hears ten witnesses who previously did not know each other, describing the same event in the exact same way, will realize that the event they describe really happened. We can thus conclude that truth is what we experience personally or what is described in detail, without contradictions, by a large number of people who had no opportunity to create a story jointly.

The same can be said for an entire community telling the same story about an event, with all its details, without any contradictions. In such a case, it is certainly impossible to say that they all fabricated the story from their minds. It is not possible for thousands of people to collectively fabricate the same story.

From the book "Dan's Journey for the Meaning of Life" by Roni Dayan. To purchase the book at Hidabroot Shops,click here.