4. Trinitarianism

Upon the basis of the ontological and epistemic structures that I have thus described, I would now like to look at the way in which those frameworks can function and in doing so hopefully produce a better understanding of truth and seek to show 

Why Trinitarian? 

In the Bible, God is described as being of the Trinity, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These three elements are said to be both mutually exclusive as well as convergently referential to God himself. Whether or not it was explicitly known to the ancients, Trinitarianism describes truth in the best formulation that we can have today, with the epistemic Trinity of categories of Logic, Science and Pragmatism. Seeing as God is often referred to as Truth, it seems the possibility of an ancient subconscious knowledge of this fact seems plausible if not scientifically verifiable. 

3. Epistemology

The categories of knowledge that I described in my ontology, match very neatly onto ways in which we formulate our knowledge about the world - our epistemology. The epistemic framework that we use, when we seek to talk about truth is very influential to the way in which we understand the world around us. Indeed, I will go on to argue that it is the ENTIRE way in which we construct our world and we should recognise the one we are using before we seek to justify our positions, with regards to another point of view. For now, however, let us match these ontological categories on to the epistemological categories to which they are associated.

1. Geometry & Idealism - The logic of geometry is the very basis of a mathematic understanding of the world and the way in which the mathematic model of reality is constructed. The logical universe is not only complete and unified but also absolute. This is essentially an Idealist epistemology from which we can state non-negotiable truths about the world from which there is no doubt, even if the world were ordered in another way, or if humans evolved an entirely different way of thinking. This is in sharp contrast with; 

2. Chemistry & Empiricism - The empirical world is a constantly developing and uncovering new truths. The empiric rationale is founded on the concept that the human mind is able to both perceive the truths about reality and fully comprehend them. However, this isn't to state that this is ALL that humans can conceive of. Under an empirical statement of beliefs, we conceive of truth as though it were as yet undiscovered realities about the world. This is very different to; 

3. Utility & Pragmatism - Pragmatic truths are distinct in that they hold a specifically practical relationship to humans and more specifically ourselves. A pragmatic truth holds utility as the ultimate value, such that some things are considered truer than others on the basis that their effect on the human, produces the intended result. If there is a fallacy found in a pragmatic sense, the whole edifice of the system that was used to describe the result comes crumbling down.

Now, these three ways of representing reality are still nothing new. I am not proposing to introduce a new epistemology into the mix. Instead, what I wish to do is to argue for the way in which these three epistemologies can be held, at the same time, yet in referent to one, indistinguishable object. Which I will now go on to explain further;

2. Ontology

In order to explain my ideas with regards to truth I would like to start from ontology. As I will explain later, the notion of truth is, I think, founded on an ontological frameworks that we cannot work our way out of. This also has the benefit of following the journey of my thinking, starting from the fundamental ontology behind the Trinitarian Notion of Truth (TNT) and then developing the theory further, in order to explain the breadth of my ideas. 

I will start off with a quick run-through of the ontological categories and then move on to the epistemelogical categories, before fully committing myself to addressing all the various problems with regards to the philosophy of truth. 

The basis of my thoughts on truth came from a personal study of what artworks and discovering what can be known about them. As a part of this project, I was really interested in how an object CAN be represented in an artistic format.

Questioning this concept, for me, led me to the idea that the knowledge of an object seemed to rely on three fundamental concepts.

SPACE - The space that an object occupies is a fundamental and consistent fact in the existence of that object. An object is bound by its dimensional structure and the space this contains within the universe. This is not the same as it's physical structure, which I will call;

MATTER - The object has a real, material formulation at an atomic level. This aspect of the object is likened to Kant's notion of the phenomena of the object. When we speak about the empirical aspects of the object we are talking about it's chemistry. When we speak about the function of the object on us we talk about;  

TIME - In talking about the function of the object, the object is limited by the very real constraints of human biology. The object is limited to its FUNCTION as an object rather than its STATUS as an object.

NOTE: none of these categories of existence are particularly new in the history of philosophy and should not be regarded as such. Many people have formulated these aspects of ontology over the history of ideas and have come to the same conclusion. It is not the identification of the object as pertaining to these principles that I think is particularly new. It is the way in which these categories function with regards to one another. Which I will try and explain next. 


1. Introduction

Whilst looking at the ways in which I could represent objects artistically, I came to what seemed to be an irreducible claim about objects that they are bound by three distinctive features. The geometric/mathematic features of the object, the scientific/empirical features of the object and the pragmatic/utile feature of the object. Over the course of the next few weeks, I started to see this tripartite pattern playing out wherever I applied it. The epistemological argument, the ontological argument, the argument of truth claims, etc. all seemed to be able to be subdivided into one of these three claims. The abstract claim, the sensory claim and the utile claim. So I decided to explore this further... In this series of blogs I am laying out some thoughts as to how this trialectic could be presented and eventually (hopefully) what it could mean when we start to discuss and defend arguments. Because, it seems to me, that when many people start to argue about a particular topic in question, they are using reasoning based on one of these positions and if they reach an impasse in their line of thought, it tends to be because they simply have two different kinds of belief with regard to truth.


Why are philosopher's so wedded to the idea that there is single Theory of Everything (TOE) with regards to truth?


The motivation for such a theory seems to be connected to the utility of such a quest in the field of science. Scientifically speaking, having a TOE means that pseudo-scientific propositions are less likely to be regarded as fact, nor unfounded beliefs given the same standing as rigorously founded theories. The TOE also provides an elegant destination to head towards with regards to the philosophy of truth and posits that if we could only uncover this theory, everything would be solved. Despite this, the idealistic nature of such a theory may be much greater than the proof that such a theory exists. Scientists consistently pass over the question of the truth as something which the philosophers need to figure out in the background while they get on with the important task of determining what the truths are. However, what difference does it make to their figures if the abstract truths of mathematics are unfounded? Scientists also consistently pass over the indiscernibility of negative claims and the problems of counterfactuals as non-issues which have led the general public's distrust in science and the move towards an ever greater reliance on philosophical relativism. Within the political sphere, at the polarised positions of the left and the right, the idea of truth being popularised as a relative term which has dominated the discourse around the issue.

My proposition is to state that truth is relative, but perspective.

Under my definition, truth is a pluralised concept, divided into three distinct aspects that are at the same time both mutually exclusive categories as well as being convergently referential. From each of these perspectives, you have a hierarchy of truths. The perspective determines the value system within which it may be judged whereby theories are positioned according to their truthfulness, within the hierarchy.

Truth is a plural concept, specifically portioned out into three perspectives.

Mathematic truths, Scientific truths and Pragmagmatic truths. Each of these I will endeavour to explain further in the course of these blog articles. I will also seek to show how this trialect model is found in many other spheres and can be helpful to ground our understanding of the world in many different fields.