THE TRUTH

[Anonymous No.21464459]

>there is no truth in the world

Don't listen to this anons. People disagree, yes, but this doesn't mean everyone is therefore wrong and there is no truth. There is the case where there is truth and some see and some don't, and those who don't see it keep arguing with those who do because whereas they only can see from their point of view, the ones who see have experienced both points of view. Accordingly, many different apparently opposed and contradictory beliefs asserted as truths may be (and really are) only the different stages of development of the conciousness and knowledge of one reality co-existing in time. As an example, think about infants, children, adolescents, adults, etc., all co-existing in the same place and time, yet each has it's own accumulated knowledge gained over time of their one shared reality. Lower stages simply cannot understand higher stages because of their lack of experience and lower stages will always view higher stages as false because they lack the prerequisite experience to see their truth. You can and will find the truth in time, or rather when you've at last seen through the veil of time.

[Anonymous No.21464462]

Hegel:

>The stages in the evolution of the Idea ... seem to follow each other by accident, and to present merely a number of different and unconnected principles, which the several systems of philosophy carry out in their own way. But it is not so. For these thousands of years the same Architect has directed the work: and that Architect is the one living Mind whose nature is to think, to bring to self-consciousness what it is, and, with its being thus set as object before it, to be at the same time raised above it, and so to reach a higher stage of its own being. The different systems which the history of philosophy presents are therefore not irreconcilable with unity.

>We may either say, that it is one philosophy at different degrees of maturity: or that the particular principle, which is the groundwork of each system, is but a branch of one and the same universe of thought. In philosophy the latest birth of time is the result of all the systems that have preceded it, and must include their principles; and so, if, on other grounds, it deserve the title of philosophy, will be the fullest, most comprehensive, and most adequate system of all.

>The spectacle of so many and so various systems of philosophy suggests the necessity of defining more exactly the relation of Universal to Particular. When the universal is made a mere form and co-ordinated with the particular, as if it were on the same level, it sinks into a particular itself. Even common sense in everyday matters is above the absurdity of setting a universal beside the particulars. Would any one, who wished for fruit, reject cherries, pears, and grapes, on the ground that they were cherries, pears, or grapes, and not fruit? But when philosophy is in question, the excuse of many is that philosophies are so different, and none of them is the philosophy — that each is only a philosophy. Such a plea is assumed to justify any amount of contempt for philosophy. And yet cherries too are fruit. Often, too, a system, of which the principle is the universal, is put on a level with another of which the principle is a particular, and with theories which deny the existence of philosophy altogether. Such systems are said to be only different views of philosophy. With equal justice, light and darkness might be styled different kinds of light.

(read universal as true and particular as "false")

[Anonymous No.21464491]

>>21464462
why shouldn't I simply read universal as "common" and particular as "rare"? If you get addicted to abstracting things into universals you might find yourself telling people that the universe itself is "the truth", and now we're truly into German philosopher grammar hell, with no additional insight into how to best live life.

[Anonymous No.21464541]

>>21464491
>why shouldn't I simply read universal as "common" and particular as "rare"?

Because both common and rare are words that can signify only the particular. There are common particulars and rare particulars, but no universal particulars, because at that point you've transcended the realm of particularity.

[Anonymous No.21464564]

>>21464541
They only signify that according to you, it's hard to find a philosophy convincing when it presents itself as self evident without many reference to any facts or realities.

[Anonymous No.21464586]

>>21464459
I completely agree with that. This system is great because it also can't be debated, if you disagree it's just that you didn't understand superior Truth, nad your opinion is just one external aspect of the Idea.

[Anonymous No.21464618]

>>21464564
>only signify that according to you
Please show me how commonality and rarity can be predicates of universality.

>self evident without many reference to any facts or realities

It takes a faculty of seeing to see, and it takes the ability to recognize a fact when you see one to recognize a fact.