This is absolute and relative truth. Absolute and relative truths

A person gets to know the world, society and himself with one goal - to know the truth. What is truth, how to determine that this or that knowledge is true, what are the criteria of truth? This is what this article is about.

What is truth

There are several definitions of truth. Here are some of them.

• Truth is knowledge that corresponds to the subject of knowledge.
• Truth is a truthful, objective reflection of reality in human consciousness.

Absolute truth - This is a person’s complete, exhaustive knowledge of something. This knowledge will not be refuted or supplemented with the development of science.

Examples: a person is mortal, two and two are four.

Relative truth - this is knowledge that will be replenished with the development of science, since it is still incomplete and does not fully reveal the essence of phenomena, objects, etc. This happens due to the fact that at this stage of human development, science cannot yet reach the ultimate essence of the subject being studied.

Example: first people discovered that substances consist of molecules, then of atoms, then of electrons, etc. As we see, at every stage of the development of science, the idea of ​​an atom was true, but incomplete, that is, relative.

Difference between absolute and relative truth is how fully a particular phenomenon or object has been studied.

Remember: absolute truth was always first relative. Relative truth can become absolute with the development of science.

Are there two truths?

No, there are no two truths . There may be several points of view on the subject being studied, but the truth is always the same.

What is the opposite of truth?

The opposite of truth is error.

Misconception - this is knowledge that does not correspond to the subject of knowledge, but is accepted as truth. A scientist believes that his knowledge about a subject is true, although he is mistaken.

Remember: lie- Not is the opposite of truth.

Lie is a category of morality. It is characterized by the fact that the truth is hidden for some purpose, although it is known. Z delusion same - this is not a lie, but a sincere belief that knowledge is true (for example, communism is a delusion, such a society cannot exist in the life of mankind, but entire generations of Soviet people sincerely believed in it).

Objective and subjective truth

Objective truth - this is the content of human knowledge that exists in reality and does not depend on a person, on his level of knowledge. This is the whole world that exists around.

For example, much in the world, in the Universe, exists in reality, although humanity has not yet known it, perhaps it will never know it, but it all exists, an objective truth.

Subjective truth - this is the knowledge acquired by humanity as a result of its cognitive activity, this is everything in reality that has passed through the consciousness of man and is understood by him.

Remember:Objective truth is not always subjective, and subjective truth is always objective.

Criteria of truth

Criteria– this is a word of foreign origin, translated from Greek kriterion - a measure for evaluation. Thus, the criteria of truth are the grounds that will allow one to be convinced of the truth, accuracy of knowledge, in accordance with its subject of knowledge.

Criteria of truth

• Sensual experience - the simplest and most reliable criterion of truth. How to determine if an apple is tasty - try it; how to understand that music is beautiful - listen to it; How to make sure that the color of the leaves is green - look at them.
• Theoretical information about the subject of knowledge, that is, theory . Many objects are not amenable to sensory perception. We will never be able to see, for example, the Big Bang, as a result of which the Universe was formed. In this case, theoretical study and logical conclusions will help to recognize the truth.

Theoretical criteria of truth:

1. Compliance with logical laws
2. Correspondence of truth to those laws that were discovered by people earlier
3. Simplicity of formulation, economy of expression

• Practice. This criterion is also very effective, since the truth of knowledge is proven by practical means .(There will be a separate article about practice, follow the publications)

Thus, the main objective any knowledge - to establish the truth. This is exactly what scientists do, this is what each of us is trying to achieve in life: know the truth , no matter what she touches.

In many ways, the problem of the reliability of our knowledge about the world is determined by the answer to the fundamental question of the theory of knowledge: "What is truth?"

1. In the history of philosophy, there have been different views on the possibilities of obtaining reliable knowledge:

• Empiricism - all knowledge about the world is justified only by experience (F. Bacon)
• Sensualism - only with the help of sensations can one understand the world (D. Hume)
• Rationalism - reliable knowledge can only be gleaned from reason itself (R. Descartes)
• Agnosticism - “the thing in itself” is unknowable (I. Kant)
• Skepticism - it is impossible to obtain reliable knowledge about the world (M. Montaigne)

True there is a process, and not some one-time act of comprehending an object in full at once.

Truth is one, but it distinguishes objective, absolute and relative aspects, which can also be considered as relatively independent truths.

Objective truth- this is the content of knowledge that does not depend on either man or humanity.

Absolute truth— this is exhaustive, reliable knowledge about nature, man and society; knowledge that can never be refuted.

Relative truth- this is incomplete, inaccurate knowledge corresponding to a certain level of development of society, which determines the ways of obtaining this knowledge; This is knowledge that depends on certain conditions, place and time of its receipt.

The difference between absolute and relative truths (or absolute and relative in objective truth) is the degree of accuracy and completeness of the reflection of reality. Truth is always specific, it is always associated with a specific place, time and circumstances.

Not everything in our life can be assessed from the point of view of truth or error (lie). So, we can talk about different assessments historical events, alternative interpretations of works of art, etc.

2. True- this is knowledge that corresponds to its subject and coincides with it. Other definitions:

1. correspondence of knowledge to reality;
2. what is confirmed by experience;
3. some kind of agreement, convention;
4. property of self-consistency of knowledge;
5. usefulness of the acquired knowledge for practice.

Aspects of truth:

3. Criteria of truth- something that certifies the truth and allows us to distinguish it from error.

1. compliance with the laws of logic;

2. compliance with previously discovered laws of science;

3. compliance with fundamental laws;

4. simplicity, cost-effectiveness of the formula;

Absolute and relative truths

paradoxical idea;

6. practice.

4. Practice- a holistic organic system of active material activity of people, aimed at transforming reality, carried out in a certain socio-cultural context.

Forms practices:

1. material production (labor, transformation of nature);
2. social action (revolutions, reforms, wars, etc.);
3. scientific experiment.

Functions practices:

1. source of knowledge (practical needs brought into existence the sciences that exist today);
2. the basis of knowledge (a person does not just observe or contemplate the world around him, but in the process of his life transforms it);
3. the purpose of cognition (for this purpose, a person cognizes the world around him, reveals the laws of its development in order to use the results of cognition in his practical activities);
4. criterion of truth (until some position expressed in the form of a theory, concept, simple conclusion is tested experimentally and put into practice, it will remain just a hypothesis (assumption)).

Meanwhile, practice is simultaneously definite and indefinite, absolute and relative. Absolute in the sense that only developing practice can finally prove any theoretical or other provisions. At the same time, this criterion is relative, since practice itself develops, improves and therefore cannot immediately and completely prove certain conclusions obtained in the process of cognition. Therefore, the idea of ​​complementarity is put forward in philosophy: the leading criterion of truth is practice, which includes material production, accumulated experience, experiment, is supplemented by the requirements of logical consistency and, in many cases, the practical usefulness of certain knowledge.

Comprehensive knowledge

Page 1

Absolutely complete, accurate, comprehensive, exhaustive knowledge about any phenomenon is called absolute truth.

It is often asked whether absolute truth can be achieved and formulated. Agnostics answer this question in the negative.  

The lack of comprehensive knowledge about control processes to be automated is not always an obstacle to determining the list of main tasks and requirements for automated control systems.  

If the program has comprehensive knowledge, it is able to formulate the question (or rather, the statement that stands behind it) as a logical consequence of the current state of the problem, the strategic knowledge contained in the metarules, knowledge about the subject area and one of the current goals.  

A modern scientist must have comprehensive knowledge in the often very narrow field of science he is developing, and, on the other hand, the successful development of the chosen direction is unthinkable without a large amount of knowledge in a wide variety of related sciences.

Difference between ABSOLUTE TRUTH and RELATIVE TRUTH

These experiments do not provide comprehensive knowledge for practice, therefore it is desirable to further conduct similar experimental work in relation to significantly more types of existing regulators and fuel supply equipment.  

None of them alone provides comprehensive knowledge of any subject.

But everything that, at least partially or through instruments, affects our senses can be studied and understood.  

Somewhat later it was shown that the Schrödinger equation provides comprehensive knowledge of the behavior of the electron. And those data that, in principle, cannot be calculated, also, in principle, cannot be measured experimentally. Let's say that as soon as you try to look at an electron, you push it off its trajectory. But what eludes measurement and calculation simply does not exist in the world.  

When applied to sufficiently developed scientific theoretical knowledge, absolute truth is complete, exhaustive knowledge about an object (a complex material system or the world as a whole); relative truth is incomplete knowledge about the same subject.  

At the same time, it is impossible, and there is no need, to demand from the manager exhaustive knowledge of all scientific disciplines, the services of which he has to resort to in managerial activities.  

Therefore, scientific truths are relative in the sense that they do not provide complete, exhaustive knowledge about the field of subjects being studied and contain elements that, in the process of development of knowledge, will change, be clarified, deepen, and be replaced by new ones.  

Heating and ventilation technology is developing so quickly that in our time it is no longer possible to demand from specialist builders and architects comprehensive knowledge of such a large field of technology in all its varieties. However, the mutual connection between heat supply and ventilation technology, on the one hand, and general construction technology, on the other, not only does not disappear, but, on the contrary, becomes even closer, even more necessary for the right decision complex of issues of factory, urban and collective farm construction.  

The main task of science is to study a phenomenon while changing the conditions in which it occurs. Comprehensive knowledge consists precisely in having a clear understanding of a particular fact that occurs under any conceivable conditions. It is very important to know which changes in the external world are indifferent to the fact of interest to us, and if there is an influence, then study it quantitatively. It is necessary to find the conditions under which the phenomenon shouts about itself, and the circumstances under which the phenomenon does not exist.  

Each of them, they reason, turns out over time to be not entirely accurate and complete, as in the example with solar system. Consequently, complete, exhaustive knowledge is unattainable. And the more complex this or that phenomenon, the more difficult it is to achieve absolute truth, that is, complete, comprehensive knowledge about it. And yet absolute truth exists; and it must be understood as the limit, the goal towards which human knowledge strives.  

In the future, it is necessary to establish why alcohols and other functional derivatives cannot be obtained from paraffin hydrocarbons, especially higher ones, using intermediate chlorination, a very attractive method. The explanation of this fact, which presupposes a comprehensive knowledge of the patterns of substitution processes for paraffin hydrocarbons, is associated with the general conclusion that not only chlorination, but also all other reactions of paraffin substitution proceed according to certain identical patterns.  

Using models, any objects can be studied. But the fundamental incompleteness and fragmentation of models does not allow us to obtain comprehensive knowledge about the original with their help. Only in combination with other methods of cognition, in combination with direct research of the original, can the modeling method be fruitful and have significant heuristic value.  

Pages:      1    2

Relativity and absoluteness of truth

In my opinion, each person is still purely subjective in his judgment about truth, and therefore it is necessary to distinguish the concept of general, in other words, absolute truth from the concept of truth of each specific individual. And in classical theory there is virtually no such distinction.

So what is relative truth? Perhaps it can be characterized as knowledge that approximately and incompletely reproduces the objective world. Approximateness and incompleteness are the specific properties of relative truth. If the world is a system of interconnected elements, then we can conclude that any knowledge about the world that abstracts from some of its aspects will be deliberately inaccurate. Why? It seems to me that because a person cannot understand the world without fixing his attention on some aspects of it and without being distracted from others, proximity is inherent in the cognitive process itself.

On the other hand, a search is being made for absolute truth within the framework of knowledge of specific, or even isolated facts. Examples of eternal truths usually include sentences that are statements of fact, for example: “Napoleon died on May 5, 1821.” Or the speed of light in vacuum is 300,000 km/s.

6 Truth and its criteria. The relativity of truth.

However, attempts to apply the concept of absolute truth to more essential provisions of science, for example, to universal laws, are unsuccessful.

Thus, a peculiar dilemma arises: if absolute truth is considered as absolutely complete and accurate knowledge, then it lies outside the limits of the real scientific knowledge; if it is considered as a set of eternal truths, then the concept of absolute truth is not applicable to the most fundamental types of scientific knowledge. This dilemma is the result of a one-sided approach to the problem, which is expressed in the fact that absolute truth is identified with a type of knowledge isolated from relative truth. The meaning of the concept “absolute truth” is revealed only in the process of development of scientific knowledge. It consists in the fact that during the transition of scientific knowledge from stage to stage, for example from one theory to another, the old knowledge is not completely discarded, but in one form or another is included in the system of new knowledge. It is this inclusion, continuity, which characterizes truth as a process, that constitutes, perhaps, the content of the concept of absolute truth.

Thus, many unsolved problems have arisen, each of which is in one way or another connected with the need to determine the degree of correspondence between human ideas and the real world. From this follows the need to search for the most stringent criterion of truth, that is, a sign by which the truth of this or that knowledge could be determined.

In addition, only after establishing the criterion of truth, many categories with which a person has to interact in one way or another acquire meaning.

Processuality of cognition lies in the fact that cognitive activity is a progression from ignorance to knowledge, from error to truth, from incomplete, imperfect, incomplete knowledge to more complete, perfect knowledge. The goal of knowledge is the achievement of truth.

What is truth? How are truth and error related? How is truth obtained and what are its criteria?

J. Locke wrote about the meaning of achieving truth: “The mind’s search for truth is a kind of falconry or hound hunting, in which the pursuit of the game itself is a significant part of the pleasure. Every step that the mind takes in its movement towards knowledge is some discovery, which is not only new, but also the best, for a while, at least."

Aristotle gave the classical definition truth – this is the correspondence between thought and object, knowledge and reality. Truth is knowledge that corresponds to reality. It should be noted that in nature itself there are no truths or errors. They are characteristics of human cognition .

Types of truth:

1.Absolute truth -

This is knowledge, the content of which is not refuted by the subsequent development of science, but is only enriched and specified (for example, the teaching of Democritus about atoms;

This is knowledge, the content of which remains invariant (Pushkin was born in 1799);

This absolutely complete and exhaustive knowledge about the subject . In this understanding, absolute truth is not achievable, because all connections of the subject cannot be explored.

2.Objective truth– this is knowledge about an object, the content of which is the properties and connections of an objectively (independently of a person) existing object. Such knowledge does not bear the imprint of the researcher’s personality.

Objective truth - this is the content of knowledge that does not depend on a person, it is an adequate reflection by the subject of the surrounding world.

3. Relative truth- it is incomplete, limited, true only in certain conditions knowledge that humanity possesses at this stage of its development. Relative truth contains elements of misconceptions associated with specific historical conditions of knowledge.

4. Concrete truth– this is knowledge, the content of which is true only under certain conditions. For example, “water boils at 100 degrees” is true only under normal atmospheric pressure.

The process of cognition can be represented as a movement towards absolute truth as a goal through the accumulation of the content of objective truth through the clarification and improvement of relative and specific truths.

The opposite of truth, but under certain conditions what passes into it and arises from it, is error.

Misconception - an unintentional discrepancy between our understanding of an object (expressed in corresponding judgments or concepts) and this object itself.

Sources of error can be:

— imperfection of an individual’s cognitive abilities;

— prejudices, preferences, subjective moods of the individual;

- poor knowledge of the subject of knowledge, rash generalizations and conclusions.

Misconceptions must be distinguished from:

— errors (the result of an incorrect theoretical or practical action, as well as the interpretation of a given phenomenon);

— lies (conscious, deliberate distortion of reality, deliberate dissemination of obviously incorrect ideas).

The idea that science operates only with truths does not correspond to reality. Misconception is an organic part of the truth and stimulates the process of cognition as a whole. On the one hand, misconceptions lead away from the truth, so a scientist, as a rule, does not consciously put forward obviously incorrect assumptions. But on the other hand, misconceptions often contribute to the creation of problematic situations, stimulating the development of science.

The experience of the history of science allows us to draw an important conclusion: all scientists should have equal rights in the search for truth; not a single scientist, not a single one scientific school has no right to claim a monopoly in obtaining true knowledge.

The separation of truth from error is impossible without resolving the question of what is criterion of truth .

From the history of attempts to identify criteria for the truth of knowledge:

· Rationalists (R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, G. Leibniz) - the criterion of truth is thinking itself when it clearly and distinctly thinks of an object; the original truths are self-evident and comprehended through intellectual intuition.

· Russian philosopher V.S. Solovyov - “the measure of truth is transferred from the external world to the cognizing subject himself; the basis of truth is not the nature of things and phenomena, but the human mind” in the case of conscientious thinking.

· E. Cassirer - the criterion of truth is the internal consistency of thinking itself.

· Conventionalism (A. Poincaré, K. Aidukevich, R. Carnap) – scientists accept scientific theories (conclude an agreement, convention) for reasons of convenience, simplicity, etc. The criterion of truth is the formal-logical consistency of scientific judgments with these agreements.

· Neopositivists (20th century) - the truth of scientific statements is established as a result of their empirical verification, this is the so-called. verification principle. (Verifiability (verification) from the Latin verus - true, and facio - I do). However, we note that often experimental activity cannot give a final answer about the truth of knowledge. This happens when the experiment examines the process “in its pure form,” i.e. in complete isolation from other influencing factors. Experimental testing of social and humanitarian knowledge is significantly limited.

· Pragmatism (W. James) - the truth of knowledge is manifested in its ability to be useful for achieving a particular goal; truth is benefit. (The thesis “everything useful is true” is controversial, since lies can also bring benefits).

Most common criterion of truth knowledge is practice , understood as the socio-historical activity of people. If the use of knowledge in practical activities people gives the expected results, which means our knowledge correctly reflects reality. Practice as a criterion of truth is considered not as a single experience, not as a one-time act of verification, but social practice in its historical development.

However, this criterion is not universal; for example, it does not work in those branches of knowledge that are far from reality (mathematics, non-classical physics). Then other criteria of truth are proposed:

· Formal-logical criterion. It is applicable to axiomatic-deductive theories and requires compliance with the requirements of internal consistency (this is the main requirement), completeness and interdependence of axioms.

When it is not possible to rely on practice, the logical sequence of thought is revealed, its strict adherence to the laws and rules of formal logic. Identifying logical contradictions in reasoning or in the structure of a concept becomes an indicator of error or misconception.

· The principle of simplicity , sometimes called “Occam’s razor” - do not multiply the number of entities unnecessarily. The main requirement of this principle is that to explain the objects under study, it is necessary to introduce a minimum number of initial postulates (accepted without proof of the provisions).

· Axiological criterion , i.e.

Absolute and relative truth

correspondence of knowledge to global ideological, socio-political, moral principles. Particularly applicable in the social sciences.

But the most important criterion of truth is still practice, experience. Practice underlies logical, axiological and all other criteria of truth. Whatever methods of establishing the truth of knowledge exist in science, all of them ultimately (through a number of intermediary links) turn out to be connected with practice.

6. Characteristics of the cognitive abilities of various social groups.

Formation of full-fledged cognitive abilities in young children and school age has now been fairly well studied. Studying the same intellectual level adults face serious difficulties. Here, of course, one cannot deny the presence of certain age characteristics, but identifying such age groups is quite difficult. Researchers have now established that certain age groups have common features and relatively stable signs of their intellectual activity. These characteristics are influenced not only biological age, but also other factors: family, place of residence, education, ethnic characteristics and much more. Therefore, people of the same age may belong to different intellectual groups depending on their sociocultural environment.

When measuring developed intelligence using the so-called “D. Wechsler test battery” (tests for awareness, logic, memory, operating with symbols, comprehending communication, etc.), the best results were given by age group from 15 to 25 years, and according to other sources - from 25 to 29 years.

Achieve high precision Measuring intelligence is quite difficult. Summarizing the data of various measurements, we can say that the growth of intellectual abilities occurs until approximately 20-25 years. Then comes a slight intellectual decline, which becomes more noticeable after 40-45 years and reaches its maximum after 60-65 years (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Relationship between intelligence and age

However, such testing does not provide an objective picture, because You cannot study the young, mature and old minds with the same tests.

U young man the mind serves, first of all, to assimilate the greatest amount of information, to master new ways of activity. The mind of a more mature person is aimed not so much at increasing knowledge, but at solving complex problems based on existing knowledge, experience and his own style of thinking and action. These qualities of the mind are often called wisdom. Of course, over the years, certain functions of the intellect inevitably weaken and are even lost. In elderly and especially senile people, the objectivity of assessments gradually decreases, the inertia of judgments increases, they often stray to extremes, black and white tones on controversial issues of life practice.

Research shows that the natural decline in intellectual activity is restrained by personal talent, education, and social status. People with higher educational levels and those in leadership positions tend to retire later than their peers. In addition, they are more likely to remain intellectually active after retirement by working as advisors or consultants.

Among scientists and other specialists in mental and creative work, it is quite natural that there are many intellectual centenarians. For older scientists and engineers, their vocabulary and general erudition hardly change with age; for middle managers, non-verbal communication functions remain at a high level; for accountants, the speed of arithmetic operations remains at a high level.

In addition to age-related characteristics of intelligence, we can also talk about gender and ethnicity.

The question of who is smarter - men or women - is as old as the world. Experimental and test studies carried out over the past two decades have confirmed the fundamental equality of intelligence in people of different sexes. When performing tasks on various mental functions (the ability to generate ideas, originality, originality), no special differences were found between male and female intellects. Many famous psychologists came to similar conclusions independently of each other. However, some superiority of women was found in verbal memory resources and vocabulary of live speech. Men are superior to women in visuospatial orientation.

Thus, although there are intellectual differences between the sexes, they are incomparably small in relation to the individual differences within each sex.

The fundamental equality of intellects does not at all mean their sameness, complete identity of cognitive processes in men and women. IQ tests consistently reveal some differences between boys and girls, boys and girls, men and women. Women, on average, are superior to men in verbal abilities, but inferior to them in mathematical abilities and the ability to navigate in space. Girls usually learn to speak, read and write earlier than boys.

The noted differences should not be absolute. Many men can speak better than women, and some women demonstrate better mathematical abilities than the vast majority of men.

An interesting fact is that according to most methods, men receive the highest and lowest possible scores. For women, the spread of individual assessments of mental giftedness is much narrower. In other words, among men there are much more geniuses in science, art and other fields, but there are also much more weak-minded men than women.

Another interest Ask, which arises before the researcher of intelligence - ethnic characteristics. As a rule, ethnic characteristics of intellectual activity and intellectual development are formed against the background of the psychological makeup of the nation.

Hans Eysenck, based on research conducted in the United States, notes that Jews, Japanese and Chinese are superior to representatives of all other nations in all indicators of IQ (intelligence quotient) tests. This is also evidenced by the awarding of the Nobel Prize. American Scientists, which lists America's leading scientists, shows that in this field Jews outnumber non-Jews by about 300%. The Chinese are equally successful in physics and biology. One of the few attempts to typologize national minds known today belongs to a French scientific theorist of the early 20th century. Pierre Duhem. Duhem distinguished between broad minds, but not deep enough, and subtle, insightful minds, although relatively narrow in their scope.

People of broad intelligence, in his opinion, are found among all nations, but there is a nation for which such intelligence is especially characteristic. These are the British. In science and, especially in practice, this “British” type of mind easily operates with complex groupings of individual objects, but it is much more difficult to assimilate purely abstract concepts and formulate general characteristics. In the history of philosophy, an example of this type of mind, from Duhem’s point of view, is F. Bacon.

The French type, Duhem believes, has a particularly subtle mind, loves abstractions and generalizations. It's too narrow though. An example of the French type of mind is R. Descartes. Duhem cited supporting examples not only from the history of philosophy, but also from other sciences.

Whenever an attempt is made to identify a particular national pattern of thought, one should remember the relativity of such differentiation. The national mind is not a stable pattern, like skin color or eye shape; it reflects many features of the sociocultural existence of a people.

⇐ Previous34353637383940414243Next ⇒

Date of publication: 2014-10-25; Read: 31934 | Page copyright infringement

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.004 s)…

Both in the past and in modern conditions, three great values ​​remain the high standard of a person’s actions and life itself - his service to truth, goodness and beauty. The first personifies the value of knowledge, the second - the moral principles of life and the third - service to the values ​​of art. Moreover, truth, if you like, is the focus in which goodness and beauty are combined. Truth is the goal towards which knowledge is directed, for, as F. Bacon rightly wrote, knowledge is power, but only under the indispensable condition that it is true.

Truth is knowledge that reflects the objective reality of an object, process, phenomenon as it really is. Truth is objective, this is manifested in the fact that the content of our knowledge does not depend either on man or on humanity. Truth is relative - correct knowledge, but not complete. Absolute truth is complete knowledge about objects, processes, phenomena that cannot be rejected by the subsequent development of our knowledge. Absolute truths are formed on the basis of relative ones. Each relative truth contains a moment of absoluteness - correctness. Concreteness of truth - every truth, even absolute, is concrete - it is truth depending on conditions, time, place.

Truth is knowledge. But is all knowledge truth? Knowledge about the world and even about its individual fragments, for a number of reasons, may include misconceptions, and sometimes even a conscious distortion of the truth, although the core of knowledge is, as noted above, an adequate reflection of reality in the human mind in the form of ideas, concepts, judgments , theories.

What is truth, true knowledge? Throughout the development of philosophy, a number of options for answering this most important question in the theory of knowledge have been proposed. Aristotle also proposed his solution, which is based on the principle of correspondence: truth is the correspondence of knowledge to an object, reality. R. Descartes proposed his solution: the most important sign of true knowledge is clarity. For Plato and Hegel, truth appears as the agreement of reason with itself, since knowledge is, from their point of view, the revelation of the spiritual, rational fundamental principle of the world. D. Berkeley, and later Mach and Avenarius, considered truth as the result of the coincidence of the perceptions of the majority. The conventional concept of truth considers true knowledge (or its logical basis) to be the result of a convention, an agreement. Some epistemologists consider knowledge that fits into a particular system of knowledge as true. In other words, this concept is based on the principle of coherence, i.e. reducibility of provisions either to certain logical principles or to experimental data. Finally, the position of pragmatism boils down to the fact that truth lies in the usefulness of knowledge, its effectiveness.

The range of opinions is quite large, but the classical concept of truth, which originates from Aristotle and comes down to correspondence, the correspondence of knowledge to an object, has enjoyed and continues to enjoy the greatest authority and widest distribution. As for other positions, although they have certain positive aspects, they contain fundamental weaknesses that make it possible to disagree with them and, at best, to recognize their applicability only on a limited scale. The classical concept of truth is in good agreement with the initial epistemological thesis of dialectical-materialist philosophy that knowledge is a reflection of reality in human consciousness. Truth from these positions is an adequate reflection of an object by a cognizing subject, its reproduction as it exists on its own, outside and independently of man and his consciousness.

There are a number of forms of truth: ordinary or everyday, scientific truth, artistic truth and moral truth. In general, there are almost as many forms of truth as there are types of activities. A special place among them is occupied by scientific truth, characterized by a number of specific features. First of all, this is a focus on revealing the essence as opposed to ordinary truth. In addition, scientific truth is distinguished by systematicity, orderliness of knowledge within its framework and validity, evidence of knowledge. Finally, scientific truth is distinguished by repeatability, universal validity, and intersubjectivity.

The key characteristic of truth, its main feature is its objectivity. Objective truth is the content of our knowledge that does not depend on either man or humanity. In other words, objective truth is such knowledge, the content of which is as it is “given” by the object, i.e. reflects him as he is. Thus, the statement that the earth is spherical is an objective truth. If our knowledge is a subjective image of the objective world, then the objective in this image is the objective truth.

Recognition of the objectivity of truth and the knowability of the world are equivalent. But, as V.I. noted. Lenin, following the solution to the question of objective truth, the second question follows: “... Can human ideas that express objective truth express it immediately, entirely, unconditionally, absolutely, or only approximately, relatively? This second question is a question of correlation absolute and relative truth."

The question of the relationship between absolute and relative truth expresses the dialectic of knowledge in its movement towards truth, in the movement from ignorance to knowledge, from less complete knowledge to more complete knowledge. Comprehension of truth - and this is explained by the endless complexity of the world, its inexhaustibility in both big and small - cannot be achieved in one act of cognition, it is a process. This process goes through relative truths, relatively true reflections of an object independent of man, to absolute truth, an accurate and complete, exhaustive reflection of the same object. We can say that relative truth is a step on the way to absolute truth. Relative truth contains grains of absolute truth, and each step of knowledge forward adds new grains of absolute truth to knowledge about an object, bringing us closer to complete mastery of it.

So, there is only one truth, it is objective, since it contains knowledge that does not depend on either man or humanity, but at the same time it is relative, because does not provide comprehensive knowledge about the object. Moreover, being objective truth, it also contains particles, grains of absolute truth, and is a step on the path to it.

And at the same time, truth is specific, since it retains its meaning only for certain conditions of time and place, and with their change it can turn into its opposite. Is rain beneficial? There cannot be a definite answer; it depends on the conditions. Truth is concrete. The truth that water boils at 100C retains its meaning only under strictly defined conditions. The position on the concreteness of truth, on the one hand, is directed against dogmatism, which ignores the changes occurring in life, and on the other hand, against relativism, which denies objective truth, which leads to agnosticism.

But the path to truth is by no means strewn with roses; knowledge constantly develops in contradictions and through contradictions between truth and error.

Misconception. - this is the content of consciousness that does not correspond to reality, but is accepted as true - the position of the indivisibility of the atom, the hopes of alchemists for the discovery of the philosopher's stone, with the help of which everything can easily turn into gold. Misconception is the result of one-sidedness in reflecting the world, limited knowledge at a certain time, as well as the complexity of the problems being solved.

A lie is a deliberate distortion of the actual state of affairs in order to deceive someone. Lies often take the form of disinformation - substituting unreliable for selfish purposes, and replacing the true with false. An example of such use of disinformation is Lysenko’s destruction of genetics in our country on the basis of slander and exorbitant praise of his own “successes,” which was very costly for domestic science.

At the same time, the very fact of the possibility for cognition to fall into error in the process of searching for truth requires finding an authority that could help determine whether some result of cognition is true or false. In other words, what is the criterion of truth? The search for such a reliable criterion has been going on in philosophy for a long time. Rationalists Descartes and Spinoza considered clarity to be such a criterion. Generally speaking, clarity is suitable as a criterion of truth in simple cases, but this criterion is subjective and therefore unreliable - an error can also appear clear, especially because it is my error. Another criterion is that what is recognized as such by the majority is true. This approach seems attractive. Don't we try to decide many issues by majority vote by resorting to voting? Nevertheless, this criterion is absolutely unreliable, because the starting point in this case is subjective. In science in general, problems of truth cannot be decided by a majority vote. By the way, this criterion was proposed by the subjective idealist Berkeley, and later supported by Bogdanov, who argued that truth is a socially organized form of experience, i.e. experience recognized by the majority. Finally, another, pragmatic approach. That which is useful is true. In principle, truth is always useful, even when it is unpleasant. But the opposite conclusion: what is useful is always truth is untenable. With this approach, any lie, if it is useful to the subject, so to speak, to his salvation, can be considered the truth. The flaw in the criterion of truth proposed by pragmatism is also in its subjective basis. After all, the benefit of the subject is at the center here.

So what exactly is the criterion of truth? The answer to this question was given by K. Marx in his “Theses on Feuerbach”: “... Whether human thinking has objective truth is not at all a question of theory, but practical question. The dispute about the reality or unreality of thinking isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."

But why can practice act as a criterion of truth? The fact is that in practical activity we measure, compare knowledge with an object, objectify it and thereby establish how much it corresponds to the object. Practice is higher than theory, since it has the dignity of not only universality, but also immediate reality, since knowledge is embodied in practice, and at the same time it is objective.

Of course, not all scientific provisions require practical confirmation. If these provisions are derived from reliable initial provisions according to the laws of logic, then they are also reliable, because the laws and rules of logic have been tested in practice thousands of times.

Practice as a result of practical activity, which is embodied in specific material things that are adequate to ideas as a criterion of truth, both absolute and relative. Absolute, since we have no other criterion at our disposal. These ideas are truths. But this criterion is relative due to the limited practice in each historical period. Thus, practice for centuries could not refute the thesis of the indivisibility of the atom. But with the development of practice and knowledge, this thesis was refuted. The inconsistency of practice as a criterion of truth is a kind of antidote against dogmatism and ossification of thought.

Practice, as a criterion of truth, is both relative and absolute. Absolute as a criterion of truth and relative as a criterion of truth, because it itself is limited in its development at a certain stage of development (developmental practice).

Throughout their existence, people try to answer many questions about the structure and organization of our world. Scientists are constantly making new discoveries and are getting closer to the truth every day, unraveling the mysteries of the structure of the Universe. What is absolute and relative truth? How are they different? Will people ever be able to achieve absolute truth in the theory of knowledge?

The concept and criteria of truth

In various fields of science, scientists give many definitions of truth. Thus, in philosophy, this concept is interpreted as the correspondence of the image of an object formed by human consciousness to its real existence, regardless of our thinking.

In logic, truth is understood as judgments and conclusions that are sufficiently complete and correct. They should be free of contradictions and inconsistencies.

In the exact sciences, the essence of truth is interpreted as the goal of scientific knowledge, as well as the coincidence of existing knowledge with real knowledge. It is of great value, allows you to solve practical and theoretical problems, substantiate and confirm the conclusions obtained.

The problem of what is considered true and what is not arose as long ago as this concept itself. The main criterion for truth is the ability to confirm a theory in practice. This could be a logical proof, an experiment, or an experiment. This criterion, of course, cannot be a one hundred percent guarantee of the truth of the theory, since practice is tied to a specific historical period and is improved and transformed over time.

Absolute truth. Examples and signs

In philosophy, absolute truth is understood as a certain knowledge about our world that cannot be refuted or disputed. It is exhaustive and the only true one. Absolute truth can only be established experimentally or with the help of theoretical justifications and evidence. It must necessarily correspond to the world around us.

Very often the concept of absolute truth is confused with eternal truths. Examples of the latter: a dog is an animal, the sky is blue, birds can fly. Eternal truths apply only to a particular fact. For complex systems, as well as for understanding the whole world as a whole, they are not suitable.

Does absolute truth exist?

Disputes between scientists about the nature of truth have been going on since the birth of philosophy. In science, there are several opinions about whether absolute and relative truth exist.

According to one of them, everything in our world is relative and depends on the perception of reality by each individual person. Absolute truth is never achievable, because it is impossible for humanity to know exactly all the secrets of the universe. First of all, this is due to the limited capabilities of our consciousness, as well as the insufficient development of the level of science and technology.

From the position of other philosophers, on the contrary, everything is absolute. However, this does not apply to knowledge of the structure of the world as a whole, but to specific facts. For example, theorems and axioms proven by scientists are considered the absolute truth, but they do not provide answers to all questions of humanity.

Most philosophers adhere to the point of view that absolute truth is made up of many relative ones. An example of such a situation is when, over time, a certain scientific fact gradually improved and supplemented with new knowledge. At present, it is impossible to achieve absolute truth in the study of our world. However, there will probably come a time when the progress of mankind will reach such a level that all relative knowledge is summed up and forms a holistic picture that reveals all the secrets of our Universe.

Relative truth

Due to the fact that a person is limited in the methods and forms of knowledge, he cannot always obtain complete information about the things that interest him. The meaning of relative truth is that it is incomplete, approximate knowledge of people about a particular object that requires clarification. In the process of evolution, new research methods, as well as more modern instruments for measurements and calculations, become available to humans. It is precisely in the accuracy of knowledge that the main difference between relative truth and absolute truth lies.

Relative truth exists in a specific time period. It depends on the place and period in which the knowledge was obtained, historical conditions and other factors that may influence the accuracy of the result. Also, relative truth is determined by the perception of reality by the particular person conducting the research.

Examples of relative truth

An example of a relative truth that depends on the location of the subject is the following fact: a person claims that it is cold outside. For him, this is the seemingly absolute truth. But people in another part of the planet are hot at this time. Therefore, when we say that it is cold outside, we only mean a specific place, which means this truth is relative.

From the point of view of human perception of reality, we can also give the example of weather. Same air temperature different people can be tolerated and felt in its own way. Some will say that +10 degrees is cold, but for others it is quite warm weather.

Over time, relative truth is gradually transformed and supplemented. For example, a few centuries ago tuberculosis was considered incurable disease, and people who became infected with it were doomed. At that time, the mortality of this disease was not in doubt. Now humanity has learned to fight tuberculosis and completely cure those sick. Thus, with the development of science and the change of historical eras, ideas about the absoluteness and relativity of truth in this matter have changed.

The concept of objective truth

For any science, it is important to obtain data that reliably reflects reality. Objective truth refers to knowledge that does not depend on the desire, will and other personal characteristics of a person. They are stated and recorded without the influence of the opinion of the research subject on the result obtained.

Objective and absolute truth are not the same thing. These concepts are completely unrelated to each other. Both absolute and relative truth can be objective. Even incomplete, not fully proven knowledge can be objective if it is obtained in compliance with all necessary conditions.

Subjective truth

A lot of people believe in various signs and signs. However, support from the majority does not at all mean objectivity of knowledge. Human superstitions have no scientific proof, which means they are subjective truth. The usefulness and significance of information, practical applicability and other interests of people cannot act as a criterion of objectivity.

Subjective truth is a person’s personal opinion about a particular situation, which does not have significant evidence. We have all heard the expression “Everyone has their own truth.” It is precisely this that fully relates to subjective truth.

Lies and delusions as the opposite of truth

Anything that is not true is considered false. Absolute and relative truth are opposite concepts for lies and delusions, meaning the discrepancy between the reality of certain knowledge or beliefs of a person.

The difference between delusion and lies lies in the intentionality and awareness of their application. If a person, knowing that he is wrong, proves his point of view to everyone, he is telling a lie. If someone sincerely considers his opinion to be correct, but in fact it is not, then he is simply mistaken.

Thus, only in the fight against lies and delusion can absolute truth be achieved. Examples of such situations are found everywhere in history. Thus, approaching the solution to the mystery of the structure of our Universe, scientists rejected various versions that were considered absolutely true in ancient times, but in fact turned out to be delusions.

Philosophical truth. Its development in dynamics

Modern scientists understand truth as a continuous dynamic process on the path to absolute knowledge. At the same time, at the moment in broadly understood truth must be objective and relative. The main problem becomes the ability to distinguish it from delusion.

Despite the sharp leap in human development over the last century, our methods of cognition still remain quite primitive, not allowing people to get closer to the absolute truth. However, by consistently moving towards the goal, on time and completely eliminating misconceptions, perhaps someday we will be able to learn all the secrets of our Universe.

The truth of a thought or idea is based on how much it corresponds to objective reality, how much it corresponds to practice.
“This rope will not support 16 kg. - No, it will ...” no matter how much we argue, we will find out whose opinion is most true only after we hang a weight on the rope and try to lift it.
Philosophy distinguishes between concrete and abstract, relative and absolute truth. Relative truth is incomplete, often even inaccurate knowledge about an object or phenomenon. Usually it corresponds to a certain level of development of society, the instrumental and research base that it has. Relative truth is also a moment of our limited knowledge of the world, the approximate and imperfection of our knowledge, this is knowledge that depends on historical conditions, the time and place of its receipt.
Any truth, any knowledge that we use in practice is relative. Any, even the simplest object, has an infinite variety of properties, an infinite number of relationships.
Let's take our example. The rope supports the weight, which is stamped “16 kilograms”. This is a relative truth, reflecting one, but not the main and by no means the only property of the rope. What material is it made of? What is the chemical composition of this material? Who, when and where produced this material? How else can this material be used? You can formulate hundreds of questions about this simple subject, but even having answered them, we will not know EVERYTHING about him.
Relative truth is true as long as it meets the practical needs of a person. For a long time, the postulate about flat earth, and about the Sun revolving around it, but only as long as this idea met the needs for navigation of ships, which did not leave sight of the shore when sailing.
In addition, relative truth must correspond to human needs. The primitive potter did not need to know the firing temperature of the clay in degrees - he successfully determined it by eye; the surgeon did not need to know the number of relatives of the patient, and the teacher did not need to know the shoe size of the student.
Absolute truth is an adequate reflection by the subject who knows of the cognizable object, its representation as what it really is, regardless of the level of human knowledge and his opinion about this object. Here a contradiction immediately arises - any human knowledge cannot be independent of man, precisely because it is human. Absolute truth is also an understanding of the infinity of the world, the limits to which human knowledge strives. The concept of “infinity” is easily used by mathematicians and physicists, but it is not possible to imagine or see infinity to the human mind. Absolute truth is also comprehensive, reliable, verified knowledge that cannot be refuted. For a long time At the heart of the worldview was the concept of the indivisibility of the atom. The word itself is translated as “indivisible.” Today we cannot be sure that tomorrow any truth that seems indisputable today will not be rejected.
The main difference between relative and absolute truth is the completeness and adequacy of the reflection of reality. Truth is always relative and concrete. “A person’s heart is on the left side of his chest” is a relative truth; a person has many other properties and organs, but it is not specific, that is, it cannot be a universal truth - there are people whose heart is located on the right. 2+2 is a truth in arithmetic, but two people + two people can be a team, a gang, or equal to a number greater than 4 if they are two married couples. 2 units of weight + 2 units of weight of uranium may not mean 4 units of weight, but a nuclear reaction. Mathematics and physics, and any exact sciences, use abstract truths. “The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs,” and it does not matter where the triangle is drawn - on the ground or on the human body, what color, size it is, etc.
Even seemingly absolute moral truths often turn out to be relative. The truth about the need for respect for parents is so universally accepted, from the biblical commandments to all world literature, but when Miklouho-Maclay tried to convince the wild islanders of Oceania who were eating their parents that this was unacceptable, they gave him an argument that was undeniable from their point of view; “We would rather eat them and maintain our lives and the lives of our children than be eaten by worms.” I'm not talking about such a moral imperative as respect for the life of another person, which is completely forgotten during war; moreover, it degenerates into its opposite.
Human knowledge is an endless process of movement from relative to absolute truth. At each stage, truth, being relative, still remains true - it meets the needs of a person, the level of development of his tools and production in general, and does not contradict the reality that he observes. That’s when this contradiction of objective reality occurs - the search for a new truth, closer to the absolute, begins. In every relative truth there is a piece of absolute truth - the idea that the Earth is flat made it possible to draw maps and make long journeys. With the development of knowledge, the share of absolute truth in relative truth increases, but will never reach 100%. Many believe that absolute truth is Revelation and is possessed only by the Omniscient and Almighty God.
Attempts to elevate relative truth to the rank of absolute are always a ban on freedom of thought and even on specific Scientific research, just as cybernetics and genetics were banned in the USSR, just as the church at one time condemned any scientific research and refuted any discovery because the Bible already contains the absolute truth. When craters were discovered on the Moon, one of the church ideologists simply stated about this: “This is not written in the Bible, therefore, this cannot be.”
In general, the elevation of relative truth to absolute is characteristic of dictatorial authoritarian regimes, which have always hampered the development of science, as well as for any religion. A person does not have to search for the truth - everything is said in the Holy Scriptures. Any object or phenomenon has an exhaustive explanation - “This is so because the Lord created (desired) it. At one time, Clive Lewis formulated this well: “If you want to know everything, turn to God, if you are interested in learning, turn to science.”
Understanding the relativity of any truth does not disappoint in knowledge, but stimulates researchers to search.

In the theory of knowledge for thousands of years, forms of truth have been distinguished: relative and absolute.

Modern philosophy

At the same time, an idea of ​​truth can be given to a person by the results of knowledge of individual aspects of the objects being studied (statement of facts, which is not identical to absolute knowledge of the entire content of these facts); - definitive knowledge of certain aspects of reality, depending on certain conditions; - knowledge that is confirmed in the process of further cognition; Whereas relative truth is correct, but incomplete knowledge about the same subject. In any scientific absolute truth one can find elements of relativity, and in relative terms there are elements of absoluteness. In addition, scientific truth is always dynamic, since it is always conditioned by something: a number of reasons, conditions, factors. They can be changed, supplemented, etc. Thus, any true knowledge in science is determined by the nature of the object to which it relates, the conditions of place and time; situation, historical framework. That is, we are talking about conditioned truth.
Thus, in science they talk about various properties of one non-dual truth, such as objectivity and subjectivity, absoluteness and relativity, abstractness and concreteness (conditioned by specific characteristics). All these are not different “sorts” of truths, but one and the same true knowledge with these properties. A characteristic feature of truth is the presence of objective and subjective sides in it. Truth, by definition, is in the subject and outside the subject at the same time. When we say that truth is “subjective,” it means that it does not exist apart from man and humanity; truth is objective - this means that the true content of human ideas does not depend either on man or on humanity. One of the definitions of objective truth is this: truth is an adequate reflection of an object by a cognizing subject, reproducing the cognizable object as it exists on its own, outside of subjective individual consciousness.

Forms of relative truth in science

For example, if we consider the nature of the reflected object, then the entire reality surrounding a person, to a first approximation, turns out to consist of matter and spirit, forming a single system; both of these spheres of reality become the object of human reflection and information about them is embodied in relative truths. The flow of information from material systems of the micro-, macro- and megaworlds forms objective truth (it is divided into objective-physical, objective-biological and other types of truth). On the other hand, certain concepts, including cultural, religious and natural sciences, can also become the object of mastery by an individual. In this case, the question arises about the compliance of the individual’s beliefs with a particular set of religious dogmas and scientific positions, about the correctness of our understanding of the theory of relativity or modern synthetic theories of evolution; in both cases the concept of “truth” is used, which leads to the recognition of the existence of conceptual truth. The situation is similar with the ideas of a particular subject about methods, means of cognition, for example, with ideas about a systems approach, a modeling method, etc. We have before us another form of truth - operational. In addition to those identified, there may be forms of truth that are determined by the specific types of human cognitive activity. On this basis, there are forms of truth: scientific, everyday, moral, etc.

Truth as a dynamic process

The objectivity of truth is the basis of the process of succession of subjective truths. The property of objective truth to be a process manifests itself in two ways: firstly, as a process of change towards an increasingly complete reflection of the object and, secondly, as a process of overcoming errors in the structure of concepts and theories. One of the problems that arises on the path of a scientist in the process of scientific research is the delimitation of truth from error, or, in other words, the problem of the existence of a criterion of truth.

Criterion of truth

This problem arose with philosophy. It took place in all periods of its development, starting from antiquity. Some philosophers believed that there was no basis for judging the objective truth of knowledge, and therefore leaned towards skepticism and agnosticism. Others relied on empirical experience, given in human sensations and perceptions: everything that is deduced from sensory data is true. Some believed that the reliability of all human knowledge could be deduced from a small number of universal propositions - axioms, the truth of which is self-evident; contradiction to them is simply unthinkable. However, in reality there are no such self-evident provisions that do not require proof, and clarity and distinctness of thinking is too fragile a criterion for proving the objective truth of knowledge.
Thus, neither sensory observation, nor self-evidence, clarity and distinctness of universal provisions can serve as criteria for the truth of knowledge. The fundamental flaw of all these concepts was the desire to find a criterion for the truth of knowledge in knowledge itself. As a result, special positions of knowledge are identified, which are somehow considered privileged compared to others.
The task arose to find a criterion that, firstly, would be directly related to knowledge, would determine its development, and at the same time would not itself be knowledge; secondly, this criterion had to combine universality with immediate reality. practice This criterion of truth turned out to be . Practice involves the subject, his knowledge, will; in practice - the unity of the subject and object with the leading role of the object. In general, practice is an objective, material process. It serves as a continuation of natural processes, unfolding according to objective laws. At the same time, knowledge does not cease to be subjective, being correlated with the objective. Practice includes knowledge, is capable of generating new knowledge, acts as its basis and. However, there are a number of sciences (for example, mathematics), where practice is not a criterion of truth, but only serves as an assistant in the discovery of new scientific truths. Thus, based on practice, a scientist can put forward a hypothesis about the distribution of this property to a number of objects. This hypothesis can be tested in practice only if the number of objects is finite. Otherwise, practice can only refute the hypothesis. Therefore, in mathematics the logical criterion prevails. This refers to its understanding as a formal logical criterion. Its essence is in the logical sequence of thought, in its strict adherence to the laws and rules of formal logic in conditions where there is no possibility of directly relying on practice. Identification of logical contradictions in reasoning or in the structure of a concept becomes an indicator of error and misconception. Thus, in almost all textbooks on analysis, geometry and topology, the famous and very important Jordan theorem for mathematicians is given, cited and proven: a closed curve on a plane that does not have self-intersections (simple) divides the plane into exactly two regions - external and internal. The proof of this theorem is very difficult. Only as a result of many years of efforts by many scientists was it possible to find relatively simple evidence, but even this is far from elementary. And the first, most difficult proof of Jordan himself generally had logical errors. While, for example, a theoretical physicist would not spend even a minute proving Jordan’s theorem. To a physicist, this theorem is absolutely obvious without any proof. Thus, each science has its own characteristic criteria of truth, which arise from the characteristics of each science and from the very goals that it sets for itself.

Buddhist concept of absolute and relative truth

In Buddhism, absolute truth is understood as the truth of higher meanings (paramartha satya), accessible to the understanding of those who were able, in the universal relativity of the nature of formation, among everyday ideas and scientific theories, to discern the whole variety of conditioned things and phenomena as a manifestation of consciousness and discover in themselves the absolute nature of the mind . “To see what is conventionally called the Absolute,” according to Nagarjuna (II-III centuries). In “Mula-Madhyamaka-karika” he wrote: “The Dharma of the Buddhas rests on two truths: the Truth conditioned by worldly meanings, and the truth of the highest meaning (absolute). Those who do not know the difference between these two truths, Those do not know the innermost essence ( highest reality) In the Buddhist Teaching. Without relying on everyday meaning, one cannot comprehend the highest (absolute) meaning, without acquiring absolute meaning one cannot achieve the end of the series of births (XXIV, 8-10).
In Buddhist philosophy, practice is also the criterion of truth.
In the tantras of the Diamond Path (Vajrayana), for example, the Guhyagarbha Tantra speaks of absolute and relative truth, it is explained that relative truth is initially pure and uncreated, and any object, any phenomenon of relative truth is in a state of great emptiness.

The doctrine of the two truths of northern Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism has its roots in the early Buddhist doctrine of the difference in approaches to teaching the Dharma. This teaching was established by Nagarjuna as the mainstay of the Madhyamaka doctrine. In it, two truths do not oppose each other, but are complementary; this is one truth on two levels of consciousness - the everyday-reasonable and the spiritual-contemplative. If the first is achieved through everyday skills and positive knowledge, then the second is revealed in the intuitive knowledge of extra-sign reality. Intuitive truth of the highest meaning cannot be achieved without the prior comprehension of conditional truth, based on inference, language and thinking. This complementarity of two truths is also indicated by the Buddhist term Dharmata, meaning the nature inherent in everything, the essence of things as they are. Sogyal Rinpoche: “This is the naked unconditioned truth, the nature of reality or the true nature of manifest existence.”
Literature: Androsov V.P. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 2011, P.90; P. 206. Absolute and relative truths: Lectures on philosophy http://lects.ru/ " target="_self" >lects.ru

Sogyal Rinpoche. The book of life and the practice of dying.